DEFINING THE ENERGY MARKET
By Wingate A. Lambertson, Ph.D.
DEFINING THE ENERGY MARKET
Wingate A. Lambertson, Ph.D.
March 21, 1999
When Hal Fox published a comparison of energy productivity with four other categories (New Energy News, Vol. 6, No. 7, January, 1999), I asked Fox what the energy industry consisted of, when described in terms of productivity. He responded that he had some of the same questions. This led me to do a little digging and the following paper .
My primary source was Statistical Abstract of the United States - 1996. Types of fuel categorize the industry. Consumption in the United States in 1994 was:
Fuel type: Quadrillion Btu/year Petroleum products 34.7 Natural gas 21.2 Coal 19.5 Nuclear electric power 6.3 Renewable energy: Hydroelectric power 3.1 Geothermal 0.3 Biofuels 2.8Electric power generation converts basic fuels into electric power and is categorized separately. For the purpose of this paper, it is included in the above categories. Electric power is used in zero-point energy collection so the fuel or energy source and the changing into useful electric power cannot be separated.
GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK published by Moody's World Energy Group, in their February, 1999 issue, forecast that by 2020 the world will consume three times as much energy as in 1970. In that year, the world's energy consumption was 1,359.3 quadrillion Btu. Assuming that the Global projection is the best available, the world's energy requirement will be 4,078 quadrillion Btu. That is the target for zero-point energy.
The common unit of measurement in the above categories is the Btu, the British thermal unit. One Btu is needed to raise one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit at 39.2 degrees F. One quadrillion is 1015 or 1,000 trillion. In oil terms, there are 5.8 million Btu in a barrel. In electricity terms, there are 10,272 Btu per kilowatt-hour. In coal terms, there are 21.278 million Btu per long ton. Nuclear power requires 20,914 Btu per kilowatt-hour.
Energy companies are based primarily on petroleum. During the 1970s oil crisis, some oil companies diversified into coal and chemicals and called themselves energy companies. The Global article tells us that Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum see themselves as energy companies and are pouring millions of dollars into solar manufacturing facilities. On the surface, movement into renewable energy is commendable. However, it appears to be a delaying action to protect their investment in fossil fuels. In 1994 the photovoltaic component of our energy consumption was too small to be even listed.
Zero-Point Energy Role
The only new energy sources that have the potential to meet the world's energy needs are cold fusion and zero-point energy. Nuclear energy is both expensive and politically unacceptable. Zero-point energy is about 10 years behind cold fusion in its development but is inherently less expensive and capable of being scaled up rapidly. It not only is capable of electric power production but will be used in all the fossil fuel markets, except chemicals. It will be possible to completely saturate the energy market by 2020 and at least one organization has plans to do just that.
Global lists nine economic sectors in terms of profit. Of those nine, energy was third from the bottom at $3.72 billion in the fourth quarter of 1998. If you take out electric companies, the profit was only $1,633 billion. In 1994 on revenues of $446.6 billion, the operating income was $30.1 billion at 3.7 percent. The technology sector was $17.08 billion. As points of comparison, in 1995 Intel had sales of $16.2 billion with a net income of $3,556 billion. Microsoft had sales of $5,937 billion with a net income of $1,453 billion or 24.5 percent.
The collection of zero-point energy and conversion into electric power or other fossil fuel applications is a high technology activity and will justify a high technology rate of return on investment or a 50 percent gross profit, for example. The relatively high rate of return will attract investors from all over the world.
Hal Fox estimated the cost of new energy as one third of present day energy costs. (Private communication) At that rate, it will replace all fossil, nuclear and renewable energy sources. Even the Columbia River may go back to salmon production. Sales expenses will be very low. Order the book:
Also: From this NEN, on p. 13:
ENERGY CREATION RESEARCH
Dr. Lev Sapogin, Igor Kulikov (Moscow), "Proposal for Theoretical and Experimental Research on Creation of New Energy Sources and Reactive Engines (Green-Jet Project)," 40 refs, 10 figs.
Our civilization would be impossible without sources of energy. Unfortunately our seemingly prosperous life may be nearing its end. According to the evaluation of experts the present-day resources of hydrocarbon fossil fuel will start to be exhausted by 2025 and then the world will face a beginning of true energy crisis. Conceivably, conventional nuclear reactors might solve this problem, since the existing thorium and uranium deposits would last for thousands of years. Yet, from an ecological view-point the current varieties of classic nuclear-fission reactors are "delayed-action mines" threatening mankind by periodic Chernobyl-type disasters.
For the entire report visit: http://www.erols.com/sturartjr/Ganzproj.html
Return to the INE Main Page
June 2, 1999.