PowerShares Global Nuclear Energy Portfolio (PKN)
Loading...
Symbols:
PKN Forum Topics
- All Comments on PKN
- General Discussion on PKN
- Tom Konrad on Alternative Energy ETFs [view article]
- ETF Update: Uranium Plays, Commodities, Financial ETFs [view article]
- Economics of Nuclear Energy [view article]
- Green and Alternative Energy ETFs [view article]
- Energy ETF Update: Nuclear Energy, Hedging Gas Prices, Coal ETF [view article]
- 3 Reasons for a Rebound in Nuclear Energy ETFs [view article]
- Cherry Picking the WNA Nuclear Energy Index [view article]
- PowerShares Goes Nuclear [view article]
loading ...Recent PKN Articles
- Tom Konrad on Alternative Energy ETFs
- ETF Update: Uranium Plays, Commodities, Financial ETFs
- iShares Cuts Into Timber, Alt. Energy with New ETFs
- Energy ETF Update: Nuclear Energy, Hedging Gas Prices, Coal ETF
- Economics of Nuclear Energy
- 3 Reasons for a Rebound in Nuclear Energy ETFs
- Cherry Picking the WNA Nuclear Energy Index
- ETF Watch: New Listings
- PowerShares Goes Nuclear
- Invest in the WNA Nuclear Energy Index with PowerShares' New ETF
- Full List of Articles »
Trading Center
Hedge Fund Jobs
Job Seekers: Search jobs by category, get job alerts by email or live feed, apply online See full list of jobs »
Employers: See all recruitment options, get applications online or by email Post a job »
Tom Konrad on Alternative Energy ETFs [view article]
BTW, User 210954 was me... problems logging in. ReplyTom Konrad on Alternative Energy ETFs [view article]
Murray- Thanks for the good write-up.In response to some of the comments above (if you feel the need to continue the conversation, please come to my blog... I don't expect to return to this article to see future comments)
mthomas- you're living in a fantasy land. I didn't follow your link, but it sounds like another version of a perpetual motion machine. Something for nothing does not exist: this is physics.
Enfant- Neither McCain nor Obama understand capital markets or business, and both admit it. I trust that they will be able to find advisors who do. Obama, has said that Energy will be a high priority for him while he is in the White House. McCain does not consider it a priority.
Reply
Tom Konrad on Alternative Energy ETFs [view article]
Obama will be the next Bill Clinton and America will have a "Green Revolution" ... just like it had Industrial Revolution... Internet Revolution etc..... We really need something new to create jobs and wealth ReplyHuckleberry
Tom Konrad on Alternative Energy ETFs [view article]
Mr. Konrad, I enjoy your articles, and as the old ad slogan goes "when you speak, I listen". But for you to suggest that Mr. Obama would be the best Presidential Candidate for alternative energy stocks is almost ludicrous.Barack Obama may understand the issue of alternative energy, but he does not understand capitalism, economics, and the market forces which will be necessary to make a transformation from fossil fuels to renewable fuels possible in the US. Obama will raise capital gains taxes, depressing the entire market including much needed investment in alternative energy. Obama will raise corporate income taxes, forcing companies to reduce R & D, reduce hiring, and possibly even push some of our brightest minds (and the venture capitalists who fund them) outside our borders to set up shop in more "business friendly" nations. And, Obama will raise personal income taxes, further reducing the amount of free capital available to invest in innovation, manufacture and job creation within the alternative energy sector.
Somewhere within the range of 50-100 years we will be a very "green" and "renewable" and "alternative"... energy nation. (We still have some major hurdles, not the least of which is to find economically viable replacements for plastic, styrofoam, vinyl, and other petroleum distillate products- like the one you're all staring at right now!) We all want alternative energy, we all "get it". The question is: Will America lead the way? Like we did with the incandescent lightbulb, the automobile, the telephone, the personal computer, and dozens of other innovations we introduced to the world? Or, will we just copy or buy the technology from other nations? Barack Obama understands the problem, but does he understand that the solution is to release the forces of capitalism and freedom?
Reply
Tom Konrad on Alternative Energy ETFs [view article]
What if there was a technology that could save the Planet ? Produce water and energy in abundance.Cheaply, reliably, and forever renewable.
www.p2pnet.net/story/1...
Regards,
Michael
Reply
ETF Update: Uranium Plays, Commodities, Financial ETFs [view article]
FRG. ReplyETF Update: Uranium Plays, Commodities, Financial ETFs [view article]
What are your thoughts on URPTF? ReplyEconomics of Nuclear Energy [view article]
I agree with Mike137 - people who think we can get all we need from renewables aren't considering the largely unsolved problem of storage.Re. the original quote about phasing out nukes in favour of a conservation program and more renewable and gas-fired power resulting in an overall decrease in emissions, read it carefully - they postulate a 2x efficiency improvement! Gee, if that's possible, then let's compare their gas-fired future with continued use of nuclear power using the same 2x efficiency gain, I'll bet the emissions decrease is even greater, and to boot they won't be stuck burning increasingly expensive and depleting natural gas. Reply
Lordi
Green and Alternative Energy ETFs [view article]
Don't forget FAN! :) ReplyEconomics of Nuclear Energy [view article]
One aspect of renewable power that often gets swept under the rug is the cost of storing energy and distributing the energy. With the variability of wind and solar large scale energy storage is needed. Batteries, flywheels, compressed air, and pump hydro storage will add significantly to the overall cost. On top of this the distribution of solar power from the southwest and wind from the mid west will require huge investments in the electrical transmission infrastructure. This includes running numerous new high tension power lines around the country. Such costs should be factored in to the total cost of renewable energy. ReplyEnergy ETF Update: Nuclear Energy, Hedging Gas Prices, Coal ETF [view article]
give it a rest JOE it's you and the socialists who have got us into this mess. ReplyCulligan
Energy ETF Update: Nuclear Energy, Hedging Gas Prices, Coal ETF [view article]
The details of the personal automobiles of the five oil executives that testified before Congress including full registrationswebofdeception.com Reply
Economics of Nuclear Energy [view article]
If the installed wind power in equal to the installed nuclear power then that only reinforces the argument that wind power sucks, seeing how nuclear power is so much more productive.I'm a Texan, and all of these idiot wind developers are out here targeting Texas wind. Texans see green money, which is their favorite color, but I am very concerned about the potential ecological damage these things could do locally when they cover hundreds of square miles.
From what I understand about the wind turbines they are really hard on things like bats, hawks, eagles and vultures. Imagine the environmental impact that would be had if these animals were greatly reduced in population! Hawks and eagles kill snakes and rodents that snakes eat. Rodents carry things like the plague, they eat crops and obviously snakes are poisonious. Vultures may not be much to look at, but they keep the land clean by eating animals that have died of disease. Bats might be ugly too, but they eat bugs which eat crops and spread disease. We are the largest beef growing area in the world, and one of the agriculturally most productive areas in the world. With food supplies already running short, what effect do you think will be realized if these wind turbines kill off animals that are vital to our ecosystem, creating a larger niche for rattlesnakes, Coyotes and Rats and prairie dogs? All animals which are destructive to livestock.
Liberals might not give a damn about Texas ecology ot agriculture, but liberals have to eat too, and that food has to come from somewhere.
Nuclear plants would have far less impact of the local environment, than these stupid ugly wind farms and they would use less land. Wind power is just an all round bad idea. Reply
Economics of Nuclear Energy [view article]
The argument of intermittend power is just a lie, of the nuclear industry. There is no scientific article that says that intermittend power can not be solved, due to fundamental natural laws. Although for nuclear people, it is a fact like E = MC2.Yes, it is a problem and it will cost money. You have to build a larger power grid and do some other things.
There are several studies that say that you can do renewables. Wind is one of the most intermittend.
But, most renewables are still more expensive than fossil. Why would you solve the intermittend problem, if your fossil alternative is still cheaper?
The German Aerospace showed that large amounts of electricity could come reliable from the Sahara and can be transported to Europe, using CSP. You might not like that, because of other reasons, but it is possible and will be affordable.
So, we have a scientific study that shows the opposite, while the nuclear industry continues to say that renewables are too intermittend, without any scientific backing.
For me, these lies are a reason to doubt more about nuclear power and the statements the industry is telling about them.
I do see future for the nuclear industry, in places where renewables are poor. Such as Sweden and Poland.
By the way, nuclear will become less significant. Total installed new windpower in 2007 was higher than total installed new nuclear power (I did divide the windpower by 3, to get a fair number). In 2013 solar cell production will surpass nuclear, that is predicted (divided by 4 for solar).
So, to the nuke guys, don't be so bullish to renewables, cooperate and look where nuclear has the highest value.
Lucas Reply
Economics of Nuclear Energy [view article]
The alliance between the liberal left and OPEC will do everything possible to prevent nuclear power from achieving a renaissance. Every day we delay building more nuclear power plants is another day of billions of dollars going to countries which hate the United States, hate freedom, hate democracy, and despise the example that the United States offers to the world of a government subject to the people, rather than people subject to the government.As a Republican, my greatest disappointment with George Bush is the fact that he did not order the building of dozens of new nuclear power plants on an emergency program following the attacks by Islamic Fascists on September 11th, 2001. If the Democrats regain the White House in the fall, the nuclear renaissance will be stopped in its tracks. McCain is our only hope. I often suspect that he has embraced the global warming fraud as a cover to better provide support for nuclear power which will truly improve the national security of the United States. Reply