Okay, I hate to take issue with my own peeps at National Review and elsewhere, but the latest issue of the magazine perpetuates a basic confusion about energy. The second item of “The Week” in the April 4 issue, discussing the hysteria about Japan’s nuclear situation, has everything right until the last sentence, which reads: “The United States should continue to pursue nuclear power as an alternative to Qaddafi oil.” (Don’t feel bad, NR: I also heard my good pal Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal, who I am sure knows better, say much the same thing on Fox News early Saturday afternoon. This is a widespread cliche on both left and right.)
Wrong. We could double our nuclear plants overnight, and carpet the nation with windmills and solar panels if you prefer “green” power, and it would do virtually nothing to reduce our oil imports for a simple reason: we do not use oil to generate electricity. (Okay, if you want to be a stickler, a very tiny amount — less than 1 percent of our total — comes from oil, chiefly in peculiar circumstances. See this item explaining how we “got off oil” a long time ago as far as electricity generation is concerned; at one point in the 1970s, oil was our second-leading source of electricity generation. High oil prices made us shift rapidly to coal and led to increasing the output of our existing nuclear plants.)
We use oil overwhelmingly for our transportation needs, and as such, until someone develops really good electric-vehicle technology (don’t hold your breath), neither nuclear nor any other of the favorite gizmos will change our need for oil. The real alternative to Qaddafi’s oil (and Saudi oil etc.) is to drill more here at home. By all means we should build more nuclear power if the economics of it make sense, but not because it will help us “get off foreign oil.”
I would hope that conservatives would leave this kind of energy illiteracy to the windmill heads and sun-worshippers on the left.
Let's not forget all the other things we use petroleum for... plastic, medicines, chemicals, rubber products, carpet and flooring, plumbing, etc.
Or to put it another way, most of the stuff in your house. And your car. And at your job. You can't replace any of that with electricity either.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSteven,
I imagine that those who equate more nuclear power with less imported oil are making the unspoken assumption that the additional electricity generated by more nuclear power could be used to power electric vehicles.
And if electric vehicles start to sell in large numbers, I imagine that we'll need to increase the amount of electricity that we generate in the US, and additional nuclear power could help with that, especially if electric vehicle owners will want to recharge in large numbers during the day, while at work, during peak electricity usage hours.
Thus, it's possible that getting to work now on additional nuclear power plants could eventually help reduce demand for oil for transportation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePlease allow me to extend this primer.
American oil production is 11% of total daily supply. Therefore increasing domestic production by 25% would increase world supply by only 2.7%. Not enough to have a significant impact on pricing.
And oil is totally fungible and it’s a global commodity. The “market” for domestic oil is not the United States, it’s the world. Because America does not “own” domestically produced oil. The oil companies who buy drilling rights own it. And they are going to sell it and refined products to the highest bidders – globally.
If the world price rises to $200 a barrel globally, that’s about what Americans are going to have to pay. Because if they don’t, the products get shipped to China or Europe or wherever. Unless the government confiscates what is produced domestically. (Does anyone here support that kind of intervention?)
Any President is going to have to ride the wild petroleum tiger regardless of where the stuff comes out of the ground. Increasing domestic production would be a good thing. And Obama may be an idiot. But increasing domestic production ain’t the panacea some make it out to be.
BTW, batteries are not the only alternative power source for transportation. Hydrogen generation and coal gasification driven by nuclear power are other future options.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFinally, someone more educated than I who gets the fact that oil doesn't power anything except our cars, our trucks, our planes, and is used to make our roads, our bridges, and our computers, and everything else other than our electricity.
Nuclear power CAN be used as a viable energy source for cars, but as long as we're afraid of nuclear power and seek to close it off for development it will never be used beyond its current use.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@SteveM;
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIncreasing world oil production by 2.7 percent might not sound like much, but it would nearly double what is known as "excess capacity," which means that it might well drive pricing down more effectively than you suggest. Moreover, American production is virtually free of political risk, as it would require a continental invasion of the world's sole superpower to interrupt. As you may have noticed, spikes in oil pricing tend to be tied to little things like revolutionary turmoil across the ENTIRE Middle East.
The oil market is different from other commodities markets because so much production is concentrated in areas of notorious political instability, and also manipulated by OPEC for political as well as economic ends. These things must be considered when assessing the impact of a "2.7 percent" increase in worldwide production. You have ignored them.
This link should interest people here:
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRe: "Moreover, American production is virtually free of political risk, as it would require a continental invasion of the world's sole superpower to interrupt."
Right, but it still doesn't matter much, because the oil is going to get shipped to the highest global bidder.
The relatively benign domestic production environment is great for the producers, but will not provide Americans with added availability. Unless they agree to pay the (global) market price.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMore accurate than true. No, we don't currently use much electricity for transport, but there is no reason this can't change over the long haul. Were electricity cheaper, we would surely find ways to use more of it for transport.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, oil and natural gas are complementary commodities for many applications, and gas is certainly burned for electricity.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe reason why we're not accelerating construction of nuclear plants isn't fear of disaster. The reason is that nuclear is way more expensive than new coal plants. Until coal is either banned or made too expensive by government fiat, nuclear will lag in this country because the US has more coal reserves than any nation on Earth.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would also add that, in fact, we already *are* turning away from Saudi oil etc. Since 2004, Canada, not the KSA, has been our largest source of foreign oil. This year, we got more oil from Canada than from the entire Persian Gulf.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBesides the use of nuclear to charge lithium or hydrogen batteries to replace oil, every additional erg we produce via nuclear means frees up coal to be used via coal liquification as an oil substitute (I think the Air Force alredy uses a 50-50 blend of conventional petroleum-sourced fuel and fule from coal). And we do produce a substantial amount of electrical power directly from coal and natural gas. Let nuclear grow until it freees up all our fossil fuels for non-electricity producing uses, and it will have a significant effect on our dependence on foreign oil.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile nuclear cannot substitute for oil produced gas in transportation, natural gas can. Much of our increase in electrical power generation is done with natural gas to take advantage of the burgeoning supply made possible by fracking. Nuclear can reduce the need for natural gas in electrical generation and supply transportation. While I agree with your main point, natural gas could go a long way to reduce our oil appetite.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile nuclear cannot substitute for oil produced gas in transportation, natural gas can. Much of our increase in electrical power generation is done with natural gas to take advantage of the burgeoning supply made possible by fracking. Nuclear can reduce the need for natural gas in electrical generation and supply transportation. While I agree with your main point, natural gas could go a long way to reduce our oil appetite.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe U.S. has about 250,000,000 cars and light trucks. I don't know how many heavy trucks there are, or how much construction and farm equipment, but these are not small numbers either. To replace the internal combustion engine/fuel tank combo with the electric motor/battery combo in all these millions of vehicles is going to require a lot of electric motors and batteries. Someone please tell me, is there enough raw materials even to consider doing this? Absent such a showing I will assume that there is not. End of story.
End of story part two is the superiority of a tank of gasoline or diesel over batteries as a transportation fuel. With a cruising range of 300-400 miles per tank, and with refueling stations located everywhere you look, the range of an internal combustion vehicle is unlimited. By comparison, the Nissan Leaf I believe has about a 100 mile range. Then it requires many hours of charging to regain the ability to cruise another 100 miles. By comparison, an I.C. vehicle can add 300-400 miles of cruising range in less than 10 minutes. The only way for an electric-only fleet to match this functionality is a network of battery replacement stations located not more than 100 miles apart. How many battery packs would need to be sitting at these stations at any given time, to supply the needs of a 250,000,000 vehicle fleet? A trillion might do it, but who knows? On any given 600 mile/day cross-country trip, an electric car will be needing six battery packs per day, about 20 to make it from coast to coast. That's a lot of batteries. Has anyone made this calculation? Has anyone calculated whether we have the raw materials to build this many batteries?
End of story part three: the electrical generation capacity and the upgrades to the residential power grid necessary to feed 250,000,000 vehicles will cost billions or trillions of dollars. Who pays for this? Do we have the raw materials even to build this much generation and transmission capacity?
Again, until someone has sketched out a credible scenario to meet all these needs, I'm going to assume it can't be done. End of story.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgreed 180 - electric will never be viable en mass. It is going backwards, and is unacceptable.
Hydrogen is the key for vehicles. Almost unlimited supply, can be used easily under the existing distribution infrastructure, eliminates the need for a great deal of the oil currently produced thus eliminating from the mideast despots the ability to fund much of anything outside of their own borders, and thus force them to come to grips with Israel. Oh and modernize themselves too.
It still has hurdles to pass, but it is the future.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse