UNG Forum Topics
- All Comments on UNG
- General Discussion on UNG
- Natural Gas Volatility Spiking [view article]
- Does Al Gore Finally Get It? [view article]
- Thursday Outlook: Commodities, Emerging Markets [view article]
- Is Natural Gas Down for the Count? [view article]
- Best and Worst Performing ETFs This Week [view article]
- Implementing Pickens' Plan for Public Energy Policy [view article]
- Managing Duration for Commodity Funds: Which Strategy Is Best? [view article]
- The 'Peak Oil' Myth: New Oil Is Plentiful [view article]
- The Realities of Natural Gas [view article]
- The Death of Natural Gas [view article]
- For ETFs, First Half of 2008 Was All About Commodities [view article]
- Comparing Oil and Natural Gas [view article]
loading ...Recent UNG Articles
- Bespoke's Commodity Snapshot (7/23/08)
- Thursday Outlook: Commodities, Emerging Markets
- Natural Gas Volatility Spiking
- Is Natural Gas Down for the Count?
- Does Al Gore Finally Get It?
- Managing Duration for Commodity Funds: Which Strategy Is Best?
- Best and Worst Performing ETFs This Week
- For ETFs, First Half of 2008 Was All About Commodities
- The Death of Natural Gas
- Comparing Oil and Natural Gas
- Full List of Articles »
Dawson
The 'Peak Oil' Myth: New Oil Is Plentiful [view article]
33 billion / 85 million = 388That's 388 days -- days -- of oil there in Brazil's deep waters. And that's (unrealistically) assuming no further increase in demand.
I know you're mad that geology is messing up your investment schemes, but wishes aren't horses, dude. Reply
Keeping Alternate Energy In Perspective [view article]
nakedjaybird,I appreciate your enthusiam but you are just brushing past the PV capital cost issue. I took some time to check my work and dig a little deeper. I would sure like to see different energy sector experts comment on the numbers. I'll try to be more concise:
Construction and delivered energy costs of some energy methods:
PV: $7/W but 35% sunlight = $21/W, $??/kw*hr
Nuclear: $5.5/W, $0.06/kw*hr
Wind: $2/W but 35% wind = $6/W, $0.10/kw*hr
Coal: $4/W, $0.06/kw*hr
Nat. Gas: $4/W, $0.05/kw*hr
I wouldn't read precise accuracy into the numbers colleced but they came from pretty comparable sources. And it seems odd to me wind is at $0.1/kw*hr with similar $6/kw to coal and gas and no input costs but that's what I found.
The point is that unfortunately PV is off the chart to the high side and I couldn't find an estimate of PV $??/kw*hr.
Wind status:
Current U.S. (from pie chart): equiv. of 170K bbl/day, increasing annually at 42K bbl/day/yr.
Current World: equiv. 463K bbl/day increasing at 115K bbl/day/yr.
I think the wind numbers are on the cusp of being significant in terms of bbl/day oil equivalents for world energy balance.
I think your theme is right but the focus on PV is too early and I wouldn't be surprised if PV is always just beyond economic reach (it would be good to hear from transistor chip people.) Wind and conservation (includes conversion to more efficient utilization, i.e. electric transportation and things like ground source heat pumps) will answer your vision with the gaps provided by more dense energy supplies. I think nuclear needs to be high on the high density list because of how it will ease demand of other stressed inputs (oil/gas.) without the emissions of coal. Also nuclear has the lowest percent of input cost/delivered cost so going forware for 10s of years Nuclear is the least susceptible to rising fuel costs plus it has the least competing competition for its fuel supply.
Solar can still play an important part via direct heat of homes and water. Ever improving solar concentrators are helping bring costs down. Solar water heaters are already cost effective at around $0.25 - $0.5/watt and then accounting for 35% sunlight = $1.1/watt. That tops the list and addresses the distribution losses you've mentioned.
As an example my solar water heater is 70% efficient and costs about 50% as much per sq. foot as a PV panel that is typically 15% efficient. So total improved efficiency is 9 times more efficient/$ than PV! Every place you see a PV, there is 900% more justification to install direct heat panel up to the usuable amount of heat.
Regarding my earlier nuclear fuel cost estimate. I tried to be careful keeping a constant basis of unenriched uranium. That's the level I'm most familiar with. Enriched uranium has about 10 times the energy and 4 times the cost, hence the motivation for enrichment. The $/person/yr energy cost is kind of meaningless since fuel is around 10% the cost of delivered nuclear energy. But the mass/person/yr might help some people visualize the waste issue. Coal, natural gas emmissions are 1000s of times more.
Also encouraging is how close to this path we are on. Right now I was told there is a 4 year lead time for delivery of commercial wind turbines due to sold out capacity. Plug in Hybrids are less than a year away. Electric bikes and scooters are already on the road. Permits for Nuclear plants are in the works. The Uranium mining industry is ramping up as fast as they can.
Improvements needed: Bring wind turbine lead time down to 2 years or what ever sight improvement schedule is. Facilitate faster permitting of Nuclear (probably the biggest issue.) Educate consumers on benefit of solar hot water, geothermal ground source heat pumps, electric transportation including plug in hybrids, and general conservation methods. And through it all I hope PV makes more progress. Reply
The 'Peak Oil' Myth: New Oil Is Plentiful [view article]
We can argue all day....eventually we will find out when the peak is....I am willing to bet we see a peak within 10 yrs from now. I guess we will have to wait and see:) ReplyKeeping Alternate Energy In Perspective [view article]
Oh yes, and nuclear. It's not going away; the objectors are. ReplyKeeping Alternate Energy In Perspective [view article]
Sorry, in order to stop mining coal for electrical power generation we will need an additional say 10 quads of solar PV. So, that makes a total of 15 quads of solar to not use oil, gas and coal in the US. That's max. And gets reduced where wind, solar thermal, tidal, hydro-extra, geo, etc., contribute. ReplyKeeping Alternate Energy In Perspective [view article]
Richard - I took another look at the use-chart I mentioned which I can't reproduce on this site.If you would do so, you can also see that we are already generating, transmitting and distributing 12 quads of electricity to residential, industrial and transportation end users. So, we already have solved a 12 Quad electrical distribution infrastructure issue. Now all we need to do is beef it up for an additional 5 Quads to handle the useful energy demand for ALL transportation (ground only, folks). AND NOT CONSUME 26 QUADS OF OIL .......DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!...
So, you solar PV guys, how much acreage in each sunbelt state do we need to produce 5-6 Quads of solar PV, worst case, at todays 15-20% conversion efficiency? Oh, and add enough to that to make the silicon, and while were at it add to also find and move the sand. Don't bother with new ground moving equipment, "steam" shovels, etc., we will have enough to last plenty of years when we stop mining coal, oil, etc.
Reply
Keeping Alternate Energy In Perspective [view article]
Yes, solar occurs around the clock, 24/7/365 on earth. If you happen to be in one place and it's nightime, you're in trouble if you want to use some energy. I think we can solve that problem.Wind blows day and night. Waves move day and night. Tides, well they go both ways: hmmmm, interesting. And then there are numerous ways to store energy including water for hydro, giant capacitors, etc. Of course, we should push geothermal too, which is around the clock, and free, but more problems with maintenance, life, etc.
Now, here's a pregnant thought: why not go a step beyond renewable: make it REPRODUCABLE renewable. How? Put in place a solar PV farm adjacent to a solar PV silicon processing plant to make the silicon for free and immediately (contrary to the coal, oil and gas story [reality!!]--- hmmmmm. That reminds me of the story of God telling Darwin to go get his own dirt).
Anyhow, think REPRODUCEABLE RENEWABLE. That can't be beat short of a real perpetual motion machine.
Peace. Reply
Keeping Alternate Energy In Perspective [view article]
Richard - regarding the waste:The electrical generation process is only 35%ish effecient in converting coal, oil or gas (without co-generation which uses the lower grade steam for process uses [or district steam heating of homes in European cities nearby the power plants] and then the total conversion efficiency increases to 65%ish: but we still lose 35% of the BTU's in oil, coal or gas, whatever we do because of all the ineffeciencies of coversion - ie., burning it to make it useful; and by the way, liquifaction, gasification, LPG's, etc., only further reduce the available useable energy if we then burn them; hydrocarbons should be used for products only, and those we cannot make with biofuel (until, if ever, we really need to use coal, oil and gas). Sorry for the diversion; back to the subject.
The above energy losses are already "paid for" or do not occur when we convert to sunlight to solar PV.
And, I believe, that transmission and distribution losses do not make up all that waste - as the chart shows it; one could be misled by the label to thinking the waste is due to distribution. Don't know what the T&D losses amount to, but that's why we use high voltage tranmission for minimizing I2R heating losses, etc..; transformers lose much of the energy, and of course, we could have built amorphous metal transformers starting 40 years ago and eliminated most of the existing transformer core losses. Manufacture and replacement of existing transformers was/is not going to happen until they treat transformers like the old mercury vapor lamps; replace them with high pressure sodium lamps, and then again with low pressure sodium, which is why the US cities are yellow at night.
As for all the waste energy from oil and gas in transportation, it goes out the tailpipe or radiator as many others have pointed out. Using that fact, if we consume 26 Quads of oil and gas for transportaion and 21 Quads are waste, then we only really need 5 Quads from solar PV to do all the transporting. So starting off with solar PV, we need only 20% of the current btu consumption to power electrified transportation: go figure!
So we could do it with 1/5 the resourses, or 1/5 the time - take your pick; and eliminate coal, gas and oil exploration, drilling, extraction, processing, transportaion, cleanup, all the supporting industries, etc., etc. And retrain everyone to install electrified railways and interstate highways, etc, for hybrids and steel-wheeled rail ferries, etc.
Responsible big oil, etc., and decent politicians should lead this. Some are very capable.
Thanks for your reponse. Reply
Keeping Alternate Energy In Perspective [view article]
The solar PV analyses forgot to account for ~50% darkness each day so the return is twice as bad. ReplyInflation-Adjusted Gas Prices at Record Levels as China Raises Energy Prices [view article]
And one more thing i would like to state as a analsty with a european bank , Half of this pain to americans and the world is due to policy of a few capitalists amongst you WHY TO HAVE CRUDE TRADING ,INFACT NOT TRADING ,but being built into bubble by you people only to hurt you guys,and the rest of the world stop crude futures trading at Nymex and see prices fall below 100 $ in 3 monthsAlso get out of middle east or see prices above 250$ in 5 year and america = former soviet union -- there is a saying that if a dog is barking you dont bite em back same way if these middle easterns are barking and iranians palestinians Americans should chill and not go out and fight to loose men money and time doing nothing in IRAQ ,but then u guys really go after something and give 110 % even if it means talking a loss Hats of to you GOD BLESS AMERICA Reply
Keeping Alternate Energy In Perspective [view article]
nakedjaybird,The pie chart is probably of energy output not input as you are referring to mentioning efficiency. Burning material to make electricity runs into about 40% efficiency limit due to exit temperatures of combustion products and slippage turning generators among other things. 40% efficiency doesn't imply wasteful, it's a thermodynamic limitation.
Energy efficiency and economic efficiency are not the same. Ultimitely the world runs on economic efficiency. Basically cost of inputs vs. value of outputs. For instance, a geothermal power plant (not geothermal ground source heat pump menitoned above) operates at only 15% efficiency but provides some of the cheapest power the world uses, lucky for Greenland.
PV Solar is not economically efficient. I'm not an electrical engineer or physicist so I can't comment on the likelyhood of overcoming their 15% energy efficiency. If they are at $5/watt right now they need to double energy efficiency and halve manufacturing cost at the same time and even then still above $1/watt.
The energy of the sun is rated at 1kw/m^2 on the earth. The average person would be comfortable with 50 kw*hr/day (Everything personl: HVAC, hot water, elec., daily transportation. Nothing industrial or commercial) so you're right that each person only needs about 500 ft^2 of earth to meet their personal needs at 100% capture efficiency. Remember that PV is only 15% efficient so this project needs 3300 ft^2. My south racing roof is 850 ft^2 so I'm only 1/4 there. That PV installation would cost $250,000. At 6% cost of capital not even accounting for the limited 25 year life (with decaying performance into those years) that is $1250/mo which is more than 6 times the value of the electricity! That is the magic of $1/watt, the break even point for energy generation. Plus I haven't accounted for cloudy days and such.
PV is not just suffering from economy of scale. A huge amount of electricity goes into processing the "sand". If you ever get a chance to tour a PV factory you'll notice the large electric substation right outside the building. So PV manufacturing costs are closely related to energy costs, they go up together.
So watch for $1/watt or lower Alternative Energy options: car pooling, driving 65 mph max, biking, CFL lights, other conservation, electric transportation, solar heat/hotwater, wind turbines, geothermal heat pumps, nuclear, coal, hydroelectric. Probably virgin Biodiesel, deffinitely WVO to Biodiesel, probably not ethanol.
I would like to hear from someone that knows the delivered cost of nuclear power $/watt infastructure cost. My contribution is that at $60/lb for Uranium the equivalent cost of oil is $3300/bbl. My daily usuage study of 50 KW*hr/person/day results in 1.1 lbs/year/person of Uranium!! $66/year fuel costs!! Of course delivered energy costs have to account for the power plant ammoritization and waste storage. Remember Europe is running some 70% nuclear to U.S. 10%, maybe a significant cost disadvantage going forward. Reply
Inflation-Adjusted Gas Prices at Record Levels as China Raises Energy Prices [view article]
like everything great which comes to an end its the western dynasty this time . As some one mentioned you people are your self giving money to your enmies and robbing your future genrations , it ll be like a poor and stagflated america for the next genration gone are the days of ford 450 truck coming are the days of small cars and buses like the poor third world countries Sad But True ReplyKeeping Alternate Energy In Perspective [view article]
nakejaybird -- that is an interesting chart. it shows a large loss of energy due to distribution -- I knew that years ago, but had forgotten about it. maybe there is nothing that can be done there, but I wonder why that huge inefficiency isn't being addressed at some level in the national conservation and efficiency discussion. my understanding is that it is related in substantial part to the length of transmission distances. ReplyKeeping Alternate Energy In Perspective [view article]
MR. SHAW--it was clear to me--keep the invested capital where majority of returns are available
--don't be overwhelmed by renewable hype; don't ignore renewables for the loooooong run.
the graphical illustration replaces the 1000 words.
how can one miss all that? Reply
Investing In a Resource-Constrained World (Part V) [view article]
>> See Iwamura, Miley, Mizuno, Bockris. Depth profiles show the>> transmutations waning at lower depths.
Definitely, the deeper into the bulk material, the less likely the water can penetrate. But that still doesn't indicate a surface reaction, which is exactly that, a surface reaction, with an exponential decay past the skin. Combustion, for instance, is usually a surface reaction for obvious reasons, but I can't see how this could be.
>> True, but many people do, and you had a lot to say previously.
Based on past experience, but I can't comment on a paper I have not read yet. Incidently, do you have a link to a Jones' paper that is not of the muon-induced variety?
>> “Percieved” by people who knew nothing about the experiment and had
>> no business guessing about it. I have never heard an electrochemist
>> say that.
I never had the impression from F&P's paper that it was difficult, but I've seen that a lot, scientists often don't communicate the hard work that went into making something happen.
>> I agree but it was an amazing accomplishment, and even if it has no
>> practical application I am sure it will teach us much about biology.
Eh, there is something offensive about it to me. There is something inhumane about messing with DNA, even for plants. It's presumptuous to think we can improve upon nature.
>> You do, in fact, bet your life on such things, every day, in a thousand
>> different ways.
True, for instance in driving over a bridge. But incorrect assumptions can lead to vast sciences. The Earth-centered astronomy led to extremely complicated maths that simplified dramatically when they changed the assumption. Even today, there are very complicated perturbation systems that calculate the perihelion shift of Mercury so as to avoid using General Relativity.
>> No, it isn’t. If cold fusion produced neutrons I would be dead, along with
>> several hundred other people. Cold fusion does not produce a measurable
>> level of neutrons.
Okay, but the lepton numbers and energy still have to balance in the end. So what is the formula for the Cold Fusion process that you get in these cells? Instead of neutrons are you getting neutrinos and gamma rays? What radiation do they detect?
>> the experiments prove that there are no neutrons. Period. Full stop.
>> You can’t argue with experiments.
I'm not arguing. There are fusion cycles that don't release neutrons, like the carbon cycle, right? But you are working nowhere near those temperatures. And there are theoretical room-temperature fusion processes that don't release neutrons directly, instead balancing with alpha particles and protons.
But the problem here is that if I ask you about the formula, you then give me an answer that "experiment trumps theory." Scientifically, it's difficult to follow an argument where the well-behaved theory is used but the disagreeable theory is discarded. If you're not producing neutrons, then I would like to see just a simple input/output formula that accomplishes that. They should be able to provide that after all, since they are measuring alpha particles, gamma radiation and proton flux, right?
>> The ones that do not work swell up, crack, or disintegrate.
But I assume you mean they swell up, crack or disintegrate after the process. How can you tell before you charge them up?
>> No it doesn’t. You can’t overrule Mother Nature on this.
I'm open buddy, let's not overrule Mother Nature on this. Just show me the energy/mass balance. That's simple enough to just type in directly to this, without referring me to three papers in your index.
>> It is, because it fuses deuterons to form helium-4 and 24 MeV of heat.
>> Most scientists I know say that makes it fusion. Perhaps you have some
>> other definition.
That one is fine, but how does that balance? For instance, here is one that balances:
(deuterium + tritium) --> (Helium + neutron + 17.6 MeV)
Or if you want one that produces 24 MeV ...
4 H --> (helium + 2 positrons + 2 neutrinos + 24.7 MeV)
I'm not asking for anything top secret, I'm just curious about the balance.
Clearly, there has to be something that it is emitting that can measured other than the energy, right? (Obviously other than the neutrinos.) Reply