This week representatives from countries around the world will be traveling to South Africa for the UN Summit on Climate Change.  This Summit begins on Monday, November 28 and continues through December 9.  I have several thoughts about climate change.

Climate Change – congratulations to the world for taking this on, despite the nature of the data.  Corporations around the world and individuals are making adjustments to their residential and commercial lives to reduce their carbon footprint.  Corporations and other entities are attaining positive results through a variety of means and technologies.  They are employing solar, wind, geothermal, better insulation, smarter architecture, energy efficient technology, etc. These costs are being born by them with various subsidies to encourage the adoption to the technology.  The education by these groups should be applauded.

However, I do not think that this should be mandated on an international basis.  Given the current financial and economic environment, this would be a costly endeavor.  Corporations and companies forced into reduced carbon emissions, would pass the costs onto the consumers, who can ill afford such pass-through costs at this time.

Environmental Protection Agency – again, congratulations to another environmental group.  The EPA should be basking in their glory for their efforts in changing the behavior of consumers and corporations in the US.   While the results are dated, smog levels around the country have dropped considerably because of fuel regulations on NOx and Sox reductions.  Rivers are significantly better.  Acid rain has been greatly reduced.  In fact, according to recent conversations that I have had with a farming coop, acid rain reduction has been so successful that the soil is now barren of sulfur.  Farmers must purchase sulfur and apply it with the fertilizers. 

However, they should not be constraining job growth by preventing the development of projects such as the Keystone XL oil pipeline, shale gas development with associated pipeline infrastructure or oil drilling.  The success of drilling shale gas, has been so successful that 6 years ago, we were importing 15 percent of our natural gas needs.  We had constructed LNG regas facilities along the coasts to import natural gas from Qatar and other Middle East countries.  Now, we are talking about building LNG trains to become an LNG exporter.  Who would have thought? All of this shale gas development has significantly dropped the price of natural gas that we have returned to one of the low- cost countries for natural gas.  Companies like Dow are talking about taking advantage of that cost benefit, by restarting one of their mothballed ethylene plants.  This will allow the US to bring back high paying chemical, fertilizer and petrochemical jobs that were lost when we were natural gas importers.  That will lead to more industry, more revenues and more taxes.  Many of the facilities are already built and can be brought back on line with minimal capex.  All of this has a job multiplier effect, adding support industry jobs.  Allowing us to develop these reserves provides us/US with cheaper energy, more jobs, more revenues (worth repeating), more taxes (again worth repeating), and more security (less revenues going to unfriendly countries).  This is a win-win for all of us/US.

Carbon Dioxide - lastly, DO NOT, I repeat DO NOT, all the trading companies and investment banks to trade carbon credits.  If you think that the banks and trading companies make too much money now, give them carbon credits to trade.  They will become rich beyond your wildest imagination and the government would lose out on one of the biggest paydays in history.  I propose that we allow the EPA to tax carbon dioxide emissions.  It could be pro-rated across the industries using a life-cycle apportionment.  This means that we do not shut the coal business down, because it is our greatest energy source and security of all the energy types (for now).  But the EPA would apportion some of the carbon tax to them – this would encourage the closing of high-sulfur mines, while keeping larger low-sulfur mines operating.  Utilities would then allocate capital resources across their electricity-generating portfolio and eventually close high-sulfur emitting coal-fired power plants.  While both of these industries would shed jobs, the revenues that the EPA take in from the carbon tax on emissions would be used for incentives to build low or no carbon emission, electricity generating capacity.  This should create more jobs than it eliminates.

Until next quatbtu.

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs – thar’s oil in them thar fields

The jobs are out there.  But you must be willing to go to them.  North Dakota is the place, but it is not where people normally think about.  It is cold, windy and flat, with little to no night life.  The jobs –  are working in the oil patch.  This is nothing new; as I drilled in there in the early to middle 1980s.  Back then we drilled vertical wells to 14,000 feet.  When we drilled into the Bakken and Three Forks and analyzed the formations with drill stem tests (a test the measures the oil productivity potential), it tested oil, but not at an economic rate to make it worth completing.  So, we left it behind pipe.  We all knew that at a higher price in the future, they would make nice wells.  

The future is here and now, not just because of the price, but because of the advent of technology.   Two technologies have advanced that make these formations economic – horizontal drilling and fracturing (I will come back to this in a future blog).  This has created a drilling boom and the need for all kinds of jobs – construction jobs of all kinds (residential, commercial, hotel, water tanks, oil tanks, pipeline, etc.), restaurant jobs, trucking jobs, small store jobs, waste removal jobs, mechanical jobs, etc.  The point here is that this industry, reviled by most of the nation, provides great paying jobs.  When an industry is allowed to grow, unintended consequences develop – good unintended consequences.  It does have negative unintended consequences too, like water use and waste disposal and inflation.  These are things that can be dealt with in time and with good planning.

In a previous blog, I mentioned the Keystone XL pipeline that could provide 20,000 jobs.  The complaint is that these jobs are transitory and poor for the environment.  While environmentalists are needed to make sure that the environment is not abused, practicality must be considered.  Environmentalists have become anti-job creators, but it must remembered that the job creators (energy companies) pay for their ability to be anti-job creators.  In both the Keystone XL and North Dakota cases, these jobs are well paying and will last for years.  Yes, the energy industry goes through boom and bust periods, but what industry does not.  In a recent StarTribue article, they reported that the state of North Dakota had an influx of 35,000 people willing to take those jobs listed above.  This boom started around 2005.  On the Job Service North Dakota website today, it listed an additional 17,454 job openings.  As a result of the two technologies mentioned above, oil production in North Dakota has increased from 45.424 million barrels per year in 1981 to 113.033 million barrels per year in 2010, according to the Energy Information Administration (see the EIA chart below). 

That oil production increase and oil price increase has resulted in a $1 billion state budget surplus for North Dakota.  That is worth repeating – a $1 billion state budget surplus.

WE NEED THIS TYPE OF ENERGY - STRONG JOBS AND A REDUCTION OF FOREIGN DEPENDENCE. 

Part 3 - Nuclear sense versus Solar cents

Part 3 of the Chart That Changed the Energy Picture.  The way to think of energy is in its three states of matter – gas, liquid, and solid.  Petroleum is liquid.  Natural gas is obviously gas, and coal and nuclear are solid.  Liquid energy is portable and solid energy is not (as least not in its current configuration).

If we start with solid energy at the bottom of the EIA chart depicted in the first blog  - Nuclear Electric Power bubble on the left-hand side – it supplies 8.3 quadrillion btus of the US overall power source.  If we trace the line from that bubble to the Electric Power square, we see that 100% of nuclear power goes to the Electric Power sector (representing 38.3 quadrillion btus of demand, or 40% of the total energy demanded by the US).  For the electric power sector, nuclear represents 22% of the total electricity produced in the US that is consumed. 

If we negatively alter the nuclear picture the way Germany is (see earlier blog on Germany’s Nuclear Winter), then we decrease the electricity produced from this source, thereby increasing our reliance on the other 4 inputs into the Electric Power sector – renewable energy 11% (dominantly hydropower), coal 48%, natural gas 18% and petroleum 1% (dominantly petroleum based electrical power generators).

If we assume that the US cuts electric power generation from some of its oldest nuclear power reactors, then we need to either make up the difference using the 4 inputs or decrease consumption of electricity (my choice.  The 1% contribution that petroleum makes is not likely to increase because that is used primarily in back-up electric power generators for mission critical facilities, like hospitals, internet server farms, and any national security facility.  That leaves us with increasing the use of natural gas, coal, or renewable energy.  

We have choices here.  We have now abundant, cheap natural gas and abundant, cheap coal.  As we have seen through the failure of Solyndra (approx. $535 million in Federal loan guarantees by Congress with the DOE giving up the right of first lien -what were they thinking – obviously they were not), Spectrawatt, and Evergreen Solar, the Federal Government should not be in this business.  This is why we have public and private equity markets. What is the most interesting aspect of the solar companies failures, is that despite the reputed job gains from this green energy source, the very people who can afford this are being castigated by the March on Wall Street crowd.  The corporations have also been large sponsors and purchasers of solar, yet the March on Wall Street crowd is bashing them.  The cost to the taxpayers for the not-ready-for-prime-time energy is astronomical and irresponsible.

Again I ask, where will we make up the difference in electrical generation?

Keystone XL controversy

I have watched this political development and have just sent a letter to the State Department encouraging Secretary Clinton to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.  There are several points to be made.  First, most environmentalists are on the receiving end of donations.  They make their living off of the generous contributions of everyday concerned citizens.  These contributions frees their guilty consciences.  However, they typically do not follow up on the environmentalists stances and actions.   You, the tax payer, feel their anti-business results - higher prices or more regulation.  They spend your money on preventing economic development.  They are essentially job destroyers.  Do not get me wrong, I am not anti-environmental.  I do however, believe that everything has economic consequences that must be rationalized.  This is one of those rationalizations.  Second, we import over 50% of our oil needs.  The Middle East is not going to be any safer now that the Arab Spring has occurred.  I believe that it gets worse before it gets less worse.  Take a look at what happened to Egypt over the weekend.  They invaded the Israeli consulate and are making it more difficult for tourism.  This type of action will occur across those Arab countries as they try to "find themselves" and the appropriate leaders.  Act 2 will be an Arab Spring  realizing that they will need petrodollars to run their economies and pay their social programs.  This will result in a tighter alignment with the OPEC hawks, thereby being less friendly (at least economically) to the developed and emerging market economies.  The end result is higher prices and more dependency on the Middle East.  Third, I have yet to find out what the environmentalist is for when it comes to decreasing prices, increasing employment and advancing our economy.  They tend to be short-sighted, which matches the donor cycle for whomever the work.  It generally is not in the country's best interest.  We are a hydrocarbon-based economy.  We need oil and gas, at least until we find something better.  But do not let everyone take down our energy sources without already having a backup plan.  As I read voraciously, I see  various environmental groups and citizens aligned with environmental groups saying:

• no to oil (off shore leasing and drilling, no to the above mentioned pipeline), oil represents about 94% of the transportation sector demand; 
• no to natural gas development (hydrofracing has been attacked from all angles - we imported 15% of our natural gas needs from Canada - now we don't, it is about 18% of our electricity generation); 
• no to nuclear (22% of our electricity generation); 
• no to coal (about 48% of our electricity generation, we have 100% of our needs for decades - and utilities have made strides to reduce all kinds of emissions); 
• no to hydropower (about 6% of our electricity generation);
• no to wind as in most cases they are eye sores to those who want it (but not in my backyard); and
• no to solar as some of these utilities want to construct solar thermal systems in the desert which impact the desert tortoise.  

How many jobs have they said no to in the above list?  How many tax dollars have they said no to in the above list?  How much energy security have they said no to in the above list?  Everything they have said no to will result in much higher prices, lower employment and lower tax revenues.  Do you want to pick up that tab?  Remember they are taking your money and telling you that you can not have jobs, while they keep theirs.

Germany's Energy Trade

Summer is over and it is time to get blogging.  On September 6, 2011, a Russian JV started filling natural gas into the first of two new pipelines, called Nord Stream.  Gazprom holds a 51% ownership in the JV with BASF SE/Wintershall Holding GmbH and E.ON Ruhrgas each holding 15.5%, and Gasunie and GDF SUEZ each holding 9%.   The first pipeline runs 1,224 kilometers along the Baltic Sea bottom to Germany.  This pipeline will transport 27.5 billion cubic meters of natural gas directly to Germany and from there to France, the UK, the Netherlands and Denmark.  A second pipeline (and identical to the first - 27.5 billion cubic meters capacity) to run parallel, is 54% complete and is expected to be completed by the fourth quarter of 2012.

I wrote an earlier blog about Germany shuttering its nuclear power industry by 2022, with 8 of 17 nuclear power plants to be shut this year.  The reduction of 10% of its power needs are to be made up elsewhere - where?  This may be the where.  It seems to me, someone across the pond, that Germany is trading one onerous energy source for another.  Gazprom is the world's largest producer of natural gas.  It has held Ukraine hostage in 2006 and 2009, over natural gas price disputes.  It is embarking on another as the buffer gas is being injected into the Nord Stream pipeline before commercial natural gas can be pumped.  This time the dispute is over a reduction in price and volume by Ukraine, but Gazprom has refused unless the Ukraine's state gas company agrees to merge with Gazprom.  The natural gas comes from Russia and begins its trip in Russia and is 51% owned by a Russian company.  Could disputes occur in the future with Germany?

This sounds like more of a monopolistic grasp over Europe than there was previously.  As Germany reduces its own ability to generate electricity or energy and replacing it with imported energy, safety issues are being traded for trade issues and less energy freedom; particularly, when the nuclear power industry has had a great track record, despite several accidents.  I think that the timing of Germany's nuclear decision was premature, but only time will tell.

SPR - Strategic Petroleum Reserve - release some now? Are you kidding me?

In a previous blog, I commented upon the number of lawyers operating our Congress (37% of Representatives and 60% of Senators).  On Wednesday, after OPEC failed? to increase production, Congressman Ed Markey (D-Mass. - J.D. earned in 1972) said that the US "must engage in a full-scale OPEC oil independence campaign in the long-term to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and prepare to use the nations' Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the short-term if prices spike once again and threaten an already-teetering economy."  While I am all for a long-term energy policy, the SPR should not be used as short-term solution to what ails the economy.  According to his website (http://markey.house.gov, June 8, 2011 OPEC post), that is exactly what he wants to do.  On March 10, 2011, he introduced H.R. 1017, which would direct the Department of Energy to release at least 30 million barrels of oil from the SPR, and then replace it with refined product like gasoline or diesel fuel when prices are low to enhance the security and flexibility of the SPR.  This short-term solution will not decrease the price of gasoline enough to benefit a "teetering economy."  To be fair, Congressman Ed Markey is not the only Representative or Senator to call for the release of the SPR.  How useful is the SPR for these situations?

A few facts about the SPR need to be discussed.  First, according to the eia.gov website, the SPR currently holds approximately 727 million barrels of crude oil.  Second, according to the DOE website (http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/spr/spr-sites) all of the SPR storage sites are in deep, massive salt caverns underlying Texas and Louisiana coastline.  The caverns range in size from 6 to 35 million barrels in capacity; a typical cavern holds 10 million barrels and cylindrical in shape with a diameter of 200 feet and a height of 2,000 feet.  The reserve contains 62 of these underground caverns.  Third, SPR oil can be distributed through the interstate pipelines to nearly half of the 141 US refineries.

Source: http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/spr/spr-sites

So, how much oil is in the SPR as it relates to the people?  The EIA supplies weekly petroleum data to the market place every Wednesday at 10:30AM Eastern Time.  For the week ending June 3, 2011, crude oil input to refineries (141 refineries in the US) was 15.1 million barrels per day.  If we used the SPR to replace that 15.1 million barrels per day of supply, then we would deplete the SPR in 48 days.  This clearly is not a go short-term solution.

OK, that will not happen because we produce a portion of that - 5.6 million barrels of the 15.1 million barrels per day total, or 37%.  For the week, we imported a net of 8.6 million barrels, or 56% of our needs.  AGAIN, WE IMPORTED 56% OF OUR NEEDS.  If we used the SPR to replace our imports, then we would deplete the SPR in 85 days.  Again, this is no short-term solution.

If we were to use the SPR to replace what Libya is not producing, according to the EIA Libya Country Analysis Brief, an estimate of 1.8 million barrels per day, then we would deplete the SPR in 403 days.  Gasoline prices for the month of May averaged $3.96 per gallon.  Just for contrast, across the EU, the average cost of a gallon of gasoline is about $8.70 (most of which is tax).  The SPR should not be used for anything less than a catastrophic event, such as the bombing of the Saudi Ras Tanura or Jeddah refineries.

So, how long would it take to get Congressman Ed Markey's 30 million barrels of oil to be released, or 4% of the total SPR?  Refining capacity for the week ending June 3, 2011, was an average of 87.2 percent of operable capacity from our 141 US refineries (Gulf Coast was at 92.0% capacity - the high, and East Coast was at 71.0% capacity - the low).  The latest, highest operating rate was 95.8% in May of 2003 and the all-time high operating rate was in August 1998 of 99.9%.  Operating at the highest rates with high temperatures for a long period of time is never a good idea.  If we used 95% as a more sustainable rate, then the refining complex of 141 refineries with an operable refining capacity of 16.994 million barrels per day, then we can achieve a 16.1 million barrels per day capacity.  At current levels of refining, we could only add an extra 1 million barrels per day of capacity.  That means that assuming that the SPR could deliver oil to the refinery on day one, we would blast through that Congressman Ed Markey's 30 million barrels release in 30 days.  What kind of impact would that really have on prices?  Not much!

Think wisely and act rationally.

Germany's Nuclear Winter

Yesterday's decision by Germany to leave nuclear energy, may be brilliant or catastrophic. They will allow 8 nuclear power plants to close by year-end with the remaining 9, for a total of 17, to close in 2022. These plants represent approximately 23% of Germany's electrical generation capacity. Taking the 8 down this year will, reduce capacity by 10% or so. The catastrophe is that it will result in much higher prices, which will cause rational usage to take place. People and businesses overnight will have to adjust their behavior. Manufacturing costs will rise, and cause Germany companies to look outside the country for cheaper manufacturing. This will likely cause unemployment to increase and tax revenue to decrease, partially offset by constructing power lines from the coastal wind farms down to the southern manufacturing sites (which will take time and will still need back-up systems for those long gray days) and constructing natural gas pipelines from the ever-reliable eastern countries (have not they learned from the previous two natural gas shutdowns from Russia).

The timing of this seems most interesting and brilliant. Suppose that Germany is tired of bailing out countries who have not saved adequately and refuse to realize that they are in debt, but because the hard working Germans are rich, they can continue to pay while the party countries continue to party. Suppose this is Germany's way of saying - Sorry, the party IS over, because we don't have the revenue stream any longer. What will Portugal, Ireland and Greece do? If the French can't push out their retirement age for all of its pensioners, then they are not likely to pick up where Germany has left off. So with the two richest countries not willing to continue to pay for the hangovers (1 and 2), where does that leave the EU and the Euro? Ask China, for they are willing to bail out Portugal.

Think wisely and act rationally.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Big Oil Lie?

A couple of weeks ago, our politicians (37% of Representatives are lawyers and 60% of Senators are lawyers - not much practical work experience or "real" understanding of how businesses operate) tried to blame the recent high gasoline prices on the Big Oil companies. How is it that we have come to this point, where our elected officials have never closed a company book on operations at the end of a fiscal year, yet they try to finger an industry that has contracted. According to the Energy Information Administration, in 1981 - the previous peak, there were 324 refineries producing 18,621,000 barrels of refined products per day; by the 2008 peak, there were 150 refineries producing 17,594,000 barrels of refined products per day. Thousands of jobs were lost in those years due to poor LIFE CYCLE refining margins, yet we only lost 1.027 million barrels per day of capacity. Years of cheap energy kept us addicted to gasoline. There are several inconsistencies or factors that have been overlooked. Let us start with the obvious: 1) WE IMPORT MORE THAN 51% OF OUR LUQUID FUEL NEEDS and have for years (the EIA in its most recent forecast, shows that since 1990, imports have been above 40% to high of 60% in 2005.). How is this Big Oil's fault? Emerging market demand as sky rocketed since India and China have entered the global markets. As they represent one-third of the global population with a rapidly growing middle class, demand exceeds supply. WE DO NOT CONTROL SUPPLY. 2) When technologies improve through capital investment, production can improve and increase. Since 2000, shale gas production in the US has increased at annual rate of 17%, according to the EIA. This was due to horizontal drilling and fracturing techniques developed by the industry. What happened to natural gas prices - they fell. But many don't like the techniques for various reasons. WE HAVE BECOME THE SAUDI ARABIA OF NATURAL GAS. Supply exceeds demand at this time. 3) Big Oil pays a higher tax rate than all other sectors over the 2005-2009 range, according to Bloomberg (January 24-30, 2011). The 2010 Earnings by Industry show that the Beverage and Tobacco Products sector earned 21.7 cents of net income per dollar of sales. Oil and Natural Gas earned 5.7 cents, with all manufacturing at 8.5 cents. The industry has spent over $200 billion per year since 2006. The industry employs 9.2 million people, who are paid excellent wages. We do not want to eliminate these jobs. Think of the multiplier effect. 4) When a gallon of milk costs as much as a gallon of gasoline and the number of people employed to explore for, develop, refine and distribute, dwarfs that of the dairy industry, with large subsidies, lest we forget, then we have a problem. Europe pays twice this. This is not Big Oil's fault - it is the consumer's. And what about all of us buying bottle water? We are willing to pay up for the water, but guess what? the bottle is made of petroleum. 5) Don't blame Big Oil, blame Congress, Salazar and most of all - us and US. We do not want drilling off of the coasts. We do not want wind off of Hyannis Port. We do not want nuclear. We do not want natural gas drilling. We do not promote heat pump technology. Then how on earth should we expect this country to compete? If everyone thinks that we pay too much, then we should buy the oil equities, buy a smaller car, live closer to work, take public transportation, get a better job, get a college degree in something that the US needs, get an extra job, car pool, ride a bike, or write our Representative or better yet, vote him or her out of office and we should run for office. Hopefully, we know how to balance a check book. But most of all, we should quit complaining, because we live in one of the greatest countries on this planet.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Part 2 - What if we follow Germany's lead on nuclear power

This is part two of the first blog about The Energy Chart.   We left you with looking at the 38.3 quadrillion btus of demand by the Electric Power sector.  The 104 currently permitted nuclear power reactors in the US (see below) produce 22% of the total electrical demand.  Chancellor Angela Murkel of Germany has issued a decree to suspend for three months all nuclear plants built before 1980.  Germany has 17 nuclear power reactors, which generate approximately 25% of its electrical needs.  According to www.world-nuclear.org, six of those plants went into commercial operation prior to 1980, or 30%.  If these six are to be suspended, Germany will reduce electrical power generation by 7.5%.   Where will Germany make up this loss of electrical power generation?  

 

Source: EIA

I reviewed the data from the EIA’s website of all 104 nuclear power plants in the US, of which 31 states have nuclear power plants.  I then took Chancellor Merkel’s suspension criteria and applied it to the US nuclear fleet.  The result is that 43% of our nuclear fleet is older than 1980.  That represents 43,504 net MW(e) or 53 of the 104 nuclear power plants in 21 different states.  If we were to suspend or idle those plants put into commercial operation prior to 1980, we would idle 9.5% of the total US electrical generating capability.  There was another interesting fact that emerged from the data.  Every reactor built before 1980 was constructed and put into commercial production in less than 10 years and on average 6 years.  There is a direct correlation to size of the reactor and length of time from beginning construction to commercial production.  Those reactors built after 1980 took much longer to construct as they were bigger (maxing out at 1.3 net MW(e)).  If we use the criteria of beginning construction versus the commercial operation, then all 104 started construction before 1980.

Where will we make up the difference in electrical generation?  

More next blog.

The Chart That Changed The Energy Picture

As in the 2001 book written by Simon Winchester entitled, "The Map That Changed the World," about William Smith, a British geologist and the first to publish a geological map and descriptions of rock strata for a large geographical portion of the UK (one of the map's first use was to explore for coal in the UK), the EIA has published a chart that could change the picture of energy in the United States.


The chart is the EIA's single best chart, that I know of, that explains the United States sources of energy and its uses of energy.  It is one of those charts from which the Sec. of Energy Chu should be strategizing our energy future.  The EIA analyzes energy supply and demand on an annual basis and publishes a very lengthy annual summary (their website is full of phenomenal data).  This chart summarizes some of that data in a "Big Picture" way.  The EIA measures this energy in quadrillion btus, hence the name of this blog.  The chart is located on http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pecss_diagram.html and is depicted below in a small format.

As a descriptive example of the chart, let us look at Nuclear Electric Power (lower left of the chart) under the Supply Sources bubbles.  Nuclear Electric Power supplies 8.3 quadrillion btus to the total U.S. energy flow of 94.6 quadrillion btus.  To understand what a quadrillion btus are, think of one quadrillion btus as being equal to 172 million barrels of oil equivalent.  The EIA, 2009, says that the U.S. used 18.8 million barrels per day (looking at the chart - 72% of petroleum energy used goes to the transportation sector for gasoline, primarily, 22% goes to the industrial sector for chemicals, primarily, 5% goes to the residential sector for East Coast heating, primarily, and the final 1% goes to the electric power sector for generators used as backup electrical power producers or other electric generating capacity).  So 1 quadrillion btus, or 172 million barrels per oil equivalent at 18.8 million barrels per day consumed in the U.S., is consumed approximately every 9 days.  Looking again at the nuclear electric power supply source bubble, the 8.3 quadrillion btus used, is consumed in 72 days.  Think about that.

Now, go to the Demand Sector boxes and look at Electric Power (lower right of the chart), demand from electricity is 38.3 quadrillion btus.  One hundred percent of the Nuclear Electric Power (the bubble) supply is used in the Electric Power sector of which nuclear represent 22% of electrical demand.  If we stop permitting on nuclear sites and shut down the nuclear power plants (currently 104 licensed in the US), we will need to make up that 22% from Petroleum, Natural Gas, Coal, or Renewable Energy (see bubbles on the left of the chart).  Think about that.  More on this in the next blog.