[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]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'N')et Exports now represent under 1/20 of GDP growth in China

[copious.abundance]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he 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.

[joewp]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he 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.

[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]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('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.

[Tyler_JC]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('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.

[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]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonoil', '3')7.5% of their GDP is generated from exports. Which is the highest in the world of any industrialized nation (if not any nation).

[Starvid]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '1') nuke plant = 1GW = $2 billion

[yesplease]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kpeavey', 'a')rticle 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

[Ferretlover]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'l')ets 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?

[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?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cube', 'l')ets 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

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse', 'C')ube, where did you get $2 billion to build a nuke plant?

[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]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('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.