The Biggest Energy Market Breakthrough Since Hydraulic Fracturing

Comments (7)

  1. Kenneth Glick says:


    If the EIA predicts that fossil fuels will represent 90.1% and renewables 10.8% of energy production in 2040, what energy source is projected to make up the other 9.1%; nuclear?


  2. Dissident says:

    I beg to differ. Biogas from sewage and landfills will equal fracking, and cost less to exploit. But then, methane from sewage is yucky instead of macho, and doesn’t require hundreds of thousands of taxpayer subsidised derricks and reduces the amount of money the likes of Exxon can get out of your pay check so its a no-no right? (Or should I say ideologically hogtied GOPER)


  3. Dwight Owens says:

    Meanwhile, Germany broke its own record for solar energy produced last month, 5.1 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity from solar power. In terms of total solar power capacity per capita, Germany crushes every other country. At the end of 2012, it had approximately 400 MW of solar power capacity per million people, considerably more than #20 USA, with about 25 MW per million people.

    But America’s own German-style solar boom may be just around the corner. In 2012, residential solar installations reached 488 megawatts — a 62% increase over 2011. Jon Wellinghoff, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) recently commented that solar is growing so quickly, “it could double every two years.”


  4. I have read articles on the use of Thorium to replace uranium in production of electric energy. Any truth to the information?


  5. Rick Casterline says:

    I am interested in the MicroCap Tech Trader but can’t find it on your website. How much does it cost and how do I subscribe?

    Rick Casterline


    Wall Street Daily Research Reply:

    Hi Rick,
    Thank you for your question. It has been submitted to our Customer Care Team. They will contact you with more information regarding MicroCap Tech Trader.

    The WSD Research Team


  6. Thinker says:

    Louis is right about the need for carbon-based energy products. The world can never live without the billions of tons of CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere because it is required in order to grow all of the food needed by the 6-7 billion people living on this planet.

    CO2 is not a pollutant and we must stop thinking about sequestration. The only sensible reason to collect CO2 generated from fuel burning is to use it to create more low-cost fuel. The Israelis have made energy-products from CO2-eating algae but it is not likely to become a lower cost fuel in view of the alternatives provided by mother nature. So, we should stop wasting tax dollars on sequestration research and let the private industry make such decisions.

    All of the gases that enter the atmosphere have the ability to reflect energy from the sun and cosmos. When this happens, less energy reaches the earth and less energy can then be reflected back onto earth from the atmosphere. The net effect of adding more of these gases to the atmosphere is ALWAYS a reduction/blocking of the solar/cosmic energy reaching the earth. This means that the atmospheric gases can NEVER add more energy to the earth and thereby raise the climactic temperature. In order for such heating to occur, these gases would have to have their own source of energy. In reality, the atmosphere can only act as a shield and an insulator so that the temperature of the earth is moderated. The extremes that would occur without an atmosphere and all of its contents do not occur because of this protective effect that keeps the climate within a range that is determined solely by the amount of energy reaching atmosphere. There is no heating effect CAUSED by the atmosphere itself. When more gases are added to the atmosphere, first there is a reduction in the energy that reaches the earth. Then, this reduced amount of energy is reduced by the energy that gets absorbed by the earth. Then, this substantially reduced anount of reflected energy is partially reflected bt the atmosphere. The net result is always LESS energy reaching the earth when more of these gases are added to the atmosphere. The factor that would increase this energy reaching the earth surface is always what amount of energy is coming at us from outside the atmosphere.

    That means that man-made global warming and man’s ability to control our climate is a fantasy, a delusion that is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE.

    So, attempting to reduce atmospheric CO2 is a insane idea that would certainly endanger the global food supply and interfere with the protection that plants provide for us as they grow using this important atmospheric CO2. That’s where all of the billions of tons of CO2 we create is going – into the food supply. So, we need to stop screwing with mother nature who has chosen to give us the carbon based fuels and link them to the food plants grow for us.


Add Comment