Loading...
Symbols:
Get Seeking Alpha Free Stock Alerts by Email!
Get Free Stock Alerts by Email!
Transcripts
- Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Q3 2008 Earnings Call Transcript
- eHealth, Inc. Q3 2008 Earnings Call Transcript
- MIPS Technologies, Inc. F1Q09 (Qtr End 09/30/08) Earnings Call Transcript
- Alexza Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Q3 2008 Earnings Call Transcript
- Alkermes, Inc. F2Q09 (Qtr End 09/30/08) Earnings Call Transcript
- Akorn, Inc. Q3 2008 Earnings Call Transcript
- Energy XXI (Bermuda) Limited F1Q09 (Qtr End 09/30/08) Earnings Call Transcript
- The Advisory Board Company F2Q09 (Qtr End 09/30/08) Earnings Call Transcript
- Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc. Q3 2008 Earnings Call Transcript
- The9 Q3 2008 Earnings Call Transcript
-
Editors' Picks
-
Most Popular
- General Electric: Genuine Risk of Collapse?
- Food: Against Self-Sufficiency
- The Fed: Now the World's Largest Private Bank
- Key to the Global Equity Market: Trend and Cycle Analysis of U.S. Retail
- Can a Global Economy Be Managed One Nation at a Time?
- Global Markets Week in Review: Turbulent Times
- Full list of Editors' Picks »
- Jim Rogers on China »
- Memo to Warren: AmEx Preferred at 15%, Warrants at $12 »
- Should We Really Bail Out the Big Three Automakers with $73.20 Per Hour Labor? »
- Peak Oil's Bell Is Ringing »
- UltraShort ETFs: At a Tipping Point? »
- The Biggest Problem Detroit's Big Three Face »
- 11 Stocks Selling Below Cash »
- Tech May Be a Wreck, But This Isn't 2001 »
- The Autos and Mentality That Ruined Detroit »
- Iceland: What It's Like to Live in a World Without Money »
- Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News »
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 »
Trading Center
- Free E-Newsletters
- About Seeking Alpha
- About Us
- Contact Us
- What's New
- Readers Feedback
- Advertise With Us
- Contributors
- Contribute an Article
- Feature Your Book
- Our Contributors
- Anonymous Contributions
- Dispute an Article?
- Legal
- Terms of Use
- Privacy
- Copyright
nakedjaybird
379 Comments
Too Late to the Oil Party? Consider an Alternative (Part II)
The T. Boone Pickens Approach
nakedjaybird
Jul 25 02:31 PMkebu77 - there are no CO2 emissions to solar, wind, etc. CO2's come from buning natural hydrocarbons. Don't burn them.
I'm all for electrified steel-wheeled rail transport of good and people (totally electric; not diesel electric) except for in air and on water (burn biofuels).
And I have read Alan Drake's stuff: my conclusion is stop burning natural hydrocarbons AND go totally electric from free, forever energy sources like solar, wind, geo, hydro, nuclear, tidal, and biofuels; then we can still address the shipping effeciencies in transportation of Alan Drake. Again, stop using the coal and the diesel.
AND HERE'S ONE FINAL THOUGHT (FOR ALL THE GORE FREAKS):
What's the evidence show for how LOW the oceans got during all the previous ice ages???
The T. Boone Pickens Approach
SOURCE ====> CONVERSION ======> USE
Where SOURCE has a number of considerations: useful unit energy content, availability, life, product costs (direct & indirect), capital and resource requirements, and then all the associated and disassociated complexities from enviornmental to remedial and waste and regulations and legal and on and on thru all the other industrial and infrastructual requirements, did I mention politcal and greed complications... (again direct, indirect, and capital be they what they may including airplanes, club memberships, vacation hideaways.....oh yes, booze and whores),...
Where CONVERSION has a number of considerations: efficiencies, ineffeciencies, technical and economic feasibilities, and then many of the same issues as stated above for SOURCE.
USE! Hmmmmm. Where do we begin? Need? Greed? Prioritiy? For sure technical feasibility. Let's burn it to keep warm at night when the sun's not doing that; that's pretty easy. Until it's too much work to gather it, be it wood, buffalo chips, oil bubbling out of the ground, surface coal, whale blubber, etc. And then .... came the wheel.....
Sorry fitz, here i go again. Have a good day.
The Benefits of Shifting to CNG for Fuel
Go do a heat balance on the electrical power generating plants using coal, gas, oil and then do the same for hydro, solar, wind, geo etc.:
100% btu's in fuel = 40% up stack as waste heat + 30% converted to electricity via HP steam + 30% waste heat in LP steam (which is recovered in co-generation plants).
With no co-generation or downstream use of the LP steam, 70% of the input energy is lost as waste heat.
Solar on the other hand converts 10-25% of the sun's free, readily available, forever energy at basically no waste: it's starting point is the same as the 30% converted to electricity in the above equation.
We've already eliminated 70% of the hydrocarbon energy losses.
If the electrical T&D losses are then as high as 10%, they're 3% of the incoming btu's to a hydrocarbon burning plant. End user losses detract from that as well.
Now you go do a heat balance on a NG powered vehicle to check your "should"; and by the way, compare it to solar generated electircy (or wind) - and then send it to Boone.
The T. Boone Pickens Approach
nakedjaybird
Jul 27 12:46 PM
Whoa Nellie!!!!
1) Nuclear is a solution - China is building 8-12 new plants; US has upwards of 15 being approved currently; don't forget France. Those that understand nuclear know that all reactors have upgraded since 3-mile Island; Chernobyl was not a commercial generating plant.
2) Even tho coal plants still waste 70% of the btu's as waste heat they are utilizing cleaner technology where desired.
3) We have not yet begun to consider hydro storage for peaking, etc., which utilizes the river feeder areas instead of the river's themselves.
4) Buning coal or crude or natural gas (CNG, LPG, etct.,,) results in 70% waste heat - loss of energy - non useful work - sure seems dumb to me. Seventy % of what we import is lost; that's like we need only 30% of the shipments!!!!!! That's like burning 70% of the money!!!!! Get it???
5) Co-generation projects up the conversion effeciency from 30% to 60%, but there is little of that in the US. Most uses are in industry process use not utility generation. No district heating in the US as in Europe.
6) Burning CNG loses 70% of the energy as waste heat, not just more than 40%.
Electrical transmission/distribut... losses are less than 10%.
7) The charge/discharge inefficiencies of battery power are losses indeed, whether from coal, nuclear, gas, cng, solar, wind, tidal. You should treat end-use losses separately from the generation equation. Of course, in solar and wind, etc., we need only convert a little more of the free stuff which is pure gain. There are basically no conversion ineffeciencies (losses) associated with solar, wind, etc.,; only conversion effeciencies (which are GAIN! Not so with burning coal, oil, gas, etc.
8) When we burn CNG in vehicles, we lose 70% of the energy as waste heat; only 30% of the energy is available for useful work. Unless of course you have a waste heat recovery device providing other useful work. Your statements are confusing.
9) When effecient solid state energy conversion devices make electricity directly from waste heat, burning NG in a can (a burner, not an engine) and all the energy becomes electricity, then we will have a super hybrid. That makes sense. And when that's available, I say let's burn biofuels and still leave the gas in the ground. See???
Why would you want to burn any natural source if alternatives provide it freely, forever, readily available??
AND FOR YOU FITZ, I WOULD NOT BURN ANY OF THEM ANY LONGER THAN ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY WHILE ELECTRIFYING AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION FROM SOLAR/WIND/TIDAL/GEO/B... GENERATION.
THAT'S THE MISSION! FULL SPEED AHEAD WITH ALL RESOURCES, EMPHASIS, .......ETC.
LEAVE ALL THE HYDROCARBONS IN THE GROUND (INTENDED CONSEQUENSES!!)
The T. Boone Pickens Approach
The T. Boone Pickens Approach
The Benefits of Shifting to CNG for Fuel
1) Nuclear is a solution - China is building 8-12 new plants; US has upwards of 15 being approved currently; don't forget France. Those that understand nuclear know that all reactors have upgraded since 3-mile Island; Chernobyl was not a commercial generating plant.
2) Even tho coal plants still waste 70% of the btu's as waste heat they are utilizing cleaner technology where desired.
3) We have not yet begun to consider hydro storage for peaking, etc., which utilizes the river feeder areas instead of the river's themselves.
4) Buning coal or crude or natural gas (CNG, LPG, etct.,,) results in 70% waste heat - loss of energy - non useful work - sure seems dumb to me. Seventy % of what we import is lost; that's like we need only 30% of the shipments!!!!!! That's like burning 70% of the money!!!!! Get it???
5) Co-generation projects up the conversion effeciency from 30% to 60%, but there is little of that in the US. Most uses are in industry process use not utility generation. No district heating in the US as in Europe.
6) Burning CNG loses 70% of the energy as waste heat, not just more than 40%.
Electrical transmission/distribut... losses are less than 10%.
7) The charge/discharge inefficiencies of battery power are losses indeed, whether from coal, nuclear, gas, cng, solar, wind, tidal. You should treat end-use losses separately from the generation equation. Of course, in solar and wind, etc., we need only convert a little more of the free stuff which is pure gain. There are basically no conversion ineffeciencies (losses) associated with solar, wind, etc.,; only conversion effeciencies (which are GAIN! Not so with burning coal, oil, gas, etc.
8) When we burn CNG in vehicles, we lose 70% of the energy as waste heat; only 30% of the energy is available for useful work. Unless of course you have a waste heat recovery device providing other useful work. Your statements are confusing.
9) When effecient solid state energy conversion devices make electricity directly from waste heat, burning NG in a can (a burner, not an engine) and all the energy becomes electricity, then we will have a super hybrid. That makes sense. And when that's available, I say let's burn biofuels and still leave the gas in the ground. See???
Why would you want to burn any natural source if alternatives provide it freely, forever, readily available??
The T. Boone Pickens Approach
Std Dist Curve? Normal Distribution? You do know what that is, right? Try statistics! The tails on both ends of the curve are where the 1 and 2 std deviations (<5% say) representing MINORITY positions exist (now all of this is MATH talk, not Limbaugh, etc., and if I say black hole, I mean in Space).
Well, sometimes your arguments and roadblocks (and even more so for many of your commentors) often represent the tails - they are not the norm ("about the norm", etc. - hey, go grab a statistics book and read it and then apply it to your writing AND thinking).
As for the labels, etc., divison, polarization, etc. - just calling a spade a spade instead of a shovel, ie., the truth. You may not like labels, etc; so you write what you write and I write what I write. We are a divided nation on many fronts - just recognizing reality. Often, the labels make describing reality simpler for most. Like Normal Distribution Curve is normally very clear. Tails are the minority. That's where wimps and selfish individuals exist - unless of course they become the norm.
Now, "alternative"... energies are currently the "wimps" and "big oil" or "hydrocarbons&quo... is the "norm", and I'd like to see the "wimps" win - which they will, you see; they will be the eventual winner: it's just a matter of time.
So let's go back to talk about the "selfish individual" (the wimp) vis-a-vis "common good". "Common Good" is not a "Communistic"... term or label (as I define it), it refers to a Nation of free, law abiding citizens existing for the common good of all (and law breakers will be punished!). And, of course, even a neanderthal den of thieves or Communist Nation which would then be the norm also live by their set of laws for their common good (and they also punish their law breakers - and it's deadly!). So, I refer you back to the above Standard Deviation Curve discussion.
FIRST, when you discuss the honorable building out of the infrastructure (STRATEGY AND TACTICS) to incorporate your "energy policy" (the NORM) don't be misled, disruptupted, deterred, upset, etc., by the noise of the TAILS.
SECOND, make sure the elements (TACTICS) of your energy policy (STRATEGY) consistently fit the matrix for the common good and not the selfish wimp, however big or small.
And yes, sometimes the "selfish individual" is rightly permitted to be "big oil" - sometimes the Gorilla wins as we rightly try to chop down the bean stock.
We are in an energy war: chose your side.
For instance, Boone wants to generate electricy from wind; GREAT!
Boone wants to eliminate burning of NG in producing electricity: WHY? To then burn it in NG cars instead of imported oil??? Why? Because our $'s are going offshore?? Why?
Why not just generate more electrity from wind (and solar, etc.) AND not burn the NG AND OIL (AND COAL) by electrifying transportation. That's a triple win on many fronts, at least:
- No NG produced, nor burned: no hydrocarbon used; no CO2.
- No OIL Imported [or Produced], nor burned: no hydrocarbon used; no CO2.
- NG and OIL consumption decreases (and the worlds availability increases substantially);
- NG and OIL prices drop (if it's a supply/demand issue).
AND we don't care, cause we're not using it.
Common good, right? Not big oil. So tell all the drill, drill, drill guys to jump in those holes.
Choose your side wisely, be clear and consistent; right will prevail even if we're dead.
I hope this clarifies things for you and your readers.
The T. Boone Pickens Approach
The T. Boone Pickens Approach
Electric conversion will continue in the US as it has occured elsewhere in the world for non-grassroot implementation. For instance, it will begin in industry (in transportation: like rails, busses, transport etc., as they have proven in the past to switch to electric and NG fork trucks, delivery vans, etc., rails, where there is in essence FLEET SERVICE, and eventually down to individuals) - you normally start with the selfish individual perspective.
Same for power generation - a Boone approach, if not utility, converts the majority while individual farm windmills and thermal solar panels comes at it from the other end, where willing minds and ingenuity prevail: roadblockers get left behind (and/or then want others to do it for them!).
The T. Boone Pickens Approach
The T. Boone Pickens Approach
Now, I could use this same argument for alternative energy sources vis-a-vis hydrocarbons, except in this case we are looking for a paridigm shift from a problem area called wasted energy to efficient energy use (others call the argument high gasoline prices, high food prices, geo-political, world oil consumption demand, drilling restrictions, etc.,) and lose focus on what we are really about as properly envisioned by Swiss rails, French Nuc, Brazilian bio, German solar, etc.
Get out of the tails; get a grip.
The T. Boone Pickens Approach
'Pickens Plan' Comes in the Nick of Time
I'm all for electrified steel-wheeled rail transport of good and people (totally electric; not diesel electric) except for in air and on water (burn biofuels).
And I have read Alan Drake's stuff: my conclusion is stop burning natural hydrocarbons AND go totally electric from free, forever energy sources like solar, wind, geo, hydro, nuclear, tidal, and biofuels; then we can still address the shipping effeciencies in transportation of Alan Drake. Again, stop using the coal and the diesel.