Us energy consumption in megawatts,viral diarrhea medication,hpv positive but 16 and 18 negative - You Shoud Know

admin 23.12.2014

A look at the energy industry from source to demand sectors may shed some light on this anomaly. A snap shot of the energy mix for any given year shows only a slight shift towards less carbon-intensive fuels. 1980; oil (42%), natural gas (26%), coal (21%), renewables (7%), nuclear (4%) and liquid biofuels (0%). 2010: oil (37%), natural gas (25%), coal (21%), nuclear (9%), renewables (7%), and liquid biofuels (1%).
2035: oil (32%), natural gas (25%), coal (20%), renewables (11%), nuclear (9%) and liquid biofuels (4%).
While the consumption of liquid biofuels was shown to grow by a factor of 587, biofuels are projected to remain a negligible part of U.S.
Today it’s somewhat controversial whether hydropower should be classified as a renewable source of energy. A closer look at the renewable energy component shows that solar, geothermal and wind are less than 2% of total energy mix of the U.S.
Increased consumption of natural gas for electrical generation is due to the combined effect of ever increasing natural gas production, declining natural gas prices and an increased use of efficient and low-cost combined cycle technology. Coal Age recently announced: “Recently published electric power data show that, for the first time since the Energy Information Administration (EIA) began collecting data, generation from natural gas-fired plants is virtually equal to generation from coal-fired plants, with each fuel providing 32% of total generation. It’s a well-proven fact that natural gas is clean, in fact the cleanest of all fossil fuels. The point is that while coal will most likely continue its decline in fueling electrical generation facilities; natural gas needs another demand sector to increase demand and further replace dirty fossil fuels from our energy inventory.
This leaves the transportation industry as the only other viable sector that can make a significant impact on the energy mix by using an alternative fuel. It must be noted that almost every conventional gasoline and diesel internal combustion engine can be converted to run on compressed natural gas (CNG).
Not that incentives are a good thing, but to play on a level playing field with petroleum, either oil subsides should be reduced or incentives should be given to end users of CNG powered vehicles (see Oil Subsidies 101).[9]  All CNG incentives offered by the federal government have expired.
There are a few disadvantages of using CNG, these include the limited number of models offered for sale or that can be retrofitted for CNG. This chart from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory provides a simple clear way to understand how energy is used in the US.
Energy sources are on the left side – solar, nuclear, hydro, wind, geothermal, natural gas, coal, biomass, petroleum. Energy users are broken in to four categories a€“ residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation. The gray boxes on the right sum up the energy that was used and the energy that was lost (rejected). The width of the lines running from the various energy sources to their destination uses is proportional to the amount of energy used. As can be seen, the lion’s share of US energy consumption comes from fossil fuel sources (oil, coal, natural gas).
Zooming in to the transportation sector, we can see that most of that oil is used for personal vehicles (cars, light truck and SUVs).
Any attempt to reduce our dependance on oil will require grappling with transportation in general, and personal transportation in particular. Personal transportation is 4 to 10 times less efficient than public transportation (commuter rail, trains and buses).
WELCOME!Thank you for visiting 8020 Vision a€“ connecting the dots between global challenges and sustainable solutions.
On August 6, I wrote a post called Making Sense of the US Oil Story, in which I looked at US oil. US natural gas production leveled off in 2013, because of the low level of US natural gas prices. The US-Canada-Mexican natural gas system is more or less a closed system (at least until LNG exports come online in the next few years) so whatever natural gas is produced, is used. If natural gas is cheap and plentiful, it tends to switch with coal for electricity production.
Coal use increased further in early 2014, because of the cold winter and higher natural gas prices. If we look at total consumption of coal and natural gas (Figure 3), we find it also tends to be quite stable.
Another factor in the lower electricity usage (and thus lower coal and natural gas usage) is fewer household formations since 2007. US coal production hit its maximum level in 1998, with production tending to decline since then. If we look at the US distribution of fuels, we see that in recent years, nuclear has been a much bigger source of energy than hydroelectricity.
If we look at hydro and nuclear separately for recent years (Figure 6, below), we see that nuclear has tended to grow, while hydro has tended to fall, although both now seem to be  on close to a plateau. The reason why hydro has tended to decrease in quantity over time is that it takes maintenance (using fossil fuels) to keep the aging power plants in operation and silt removed from near the dams.
Nuclear power plant electricity production has grown even since the 1986 Chernobyl accident because the United States has continued to expand the capacity of existing nuclear facilities. It is easier to see other energy types if we look at them as a percentage of US total energy consumption. A person can see that over the long haul, hydroelectric has tended to shrink as a percentage of energy consumption, as energy needs grew and hydroelectric failed to keep up. The GeoBiomass category is BP’s catch-all category, mentioned above.1 It (theoretically) includes everything from the wood we burn in our fireplaces to the charcoal briquettes we use to cook food outdoors, to home heating with wood or briquettes to the burning of sawdust or wood pieces in power plants.
Biofuels now amount to 5.7% of US petroleum (crude oil plus natural gas liquids) consumption. Corn ethanol currently takes about 40% of US corn production, according to the USDA (Figure 9). If someone figures out how to make cellulosic ethanol cheaply (perhaps from wood), it presumably will cut into the market for corn ethanol, unless the blend wall is raised to 15%. Wind and Solar PV are sources of US electricity, so really need to be compared in that context.
Figure 10: Hydroelectric, other renewables, and nuclear as a percentage of US electricity supply, based on EIA data. A major issue with wind and solar is that we badly need a “solution” to our energy problem, so these are “pushed,” whether they are really helpful or not. The confusion comes elsewhere, where substitution is for natural gas, coal, or nuclear energy. If we want to maintain the electric grid so we can continue to have electricity for a variety of purposes, the “correct” credit for intermittent renewables is the savings to the power companies–which is likely to be close to the savings in fuel costs, or about 3 cents per kWh on the mainland United States. Germany is known for its encouragement of wind and solar PV, using liberal funding for the renewables.

The “catch” in scaling up natural gas consumption is a price “catch.” If the price of natural gas price rises too high relative to coal, then electricity production starts switching back to coal. Politicians need to have a “solution” they can call an energy savior, but it is hard to see that renewables will play more than a small role.
Gail TverbergGail Tverberg is a casualty actuary whose prior work involved forecasting and modeling in the insurance industry.
I have started watching the BBC DVD set about Albert Kahn’s photo collection from the years around 1900. Unfortunately, our current system is set up for very specific energy carriers–gasoline, or diesel or jet fuel, or electricity.
Past costs and historical views do not reflect this changing dynamic because past views neglect the high correlation of learning curve innovation. Energy Consumption in 2011 by Energy Source is shown below.[3] As opposed to the previous figure, this chart breaks out the various energy sources that makeup renewable energy. This is due to replacing coal-fired generation plants with natural gas-fired generation stations.
Also, due to regulatory pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution from coal-fired power plants, electric utilities had no other choice but to adopt natural gas as a logical alternative.
In April 2012, preliminary data show net electric generation from natural gas was 95.9 million megawatt-hours (mw-hr), only slightly below generation from coal, at 96 million mw-hr. There is rhetoric, and just that, on Capitol Hill to do something to stimulate usage of natural gas in the transportation sector. A good part of this limitation is due to EPA regulations that make the CNG certification process rather lengthy and costly. Natural gas, being the least disruptive fossil fuel, could serve as a ‘bridge’ to a low-carbon future. Barry Stevens, an accomplished business developer and entrepreneur in technology-driven enterprises. Of the fossil fuels, oil is the source most in demand, the bulk of which is used by the transportation sector. When oil prices rise quickly, as they did in 2008 (to over $140 per barrel), consumer behavior shifts rapidly.
In 2013, there was growth in gas production in Pennsylvania in the Marcellus, but many other states, including Texas, saw decreases in production.
Selected Fuels Share of US Electricity Production – Coal, Natural Gas, and the sum of Coal plus Natural Gas, based on EIA data. In Figure 2, there is a slight downward trend in the sum of coal and natural gas’s share of electricity, as renewables add their (rather small) effect. Increases in natural gas consumption more or less correspond to decreases in coal consumption. Young people who continue to live with their parents don’t add as much electricity usage as ones who set up their own households do.
US coal consumption has been dropping faster than production, so that exports (difference between production and consumption) have been rising (Figure 4). Hydroelectricity using concrete and metals became feasible in the 1800s, when we began using coal to provide the heat necessary to make metals and concrete in quantity.
US Energy Consumption, showing the various fossil fuel extenders separately from fossil fuels, based on BP data. The grouping GeoBiomass is a BP grouping including geothermal and various forms of wood and other biomass energy, including sources such as landfill gas and other energy from waste. Hydro tends to be more variable than nuclear because it depends on rainfall and snow pack, things that vary from year to year and month to month. Most of the good locations for dams are already taken, so not much new capacity has been added.
Renewables are percentage of US energy consumption, using EIA data (but groupings used by BP).
It also includes geothermal, which is about 6% as large as hydroelectric, and is increasing gradually over time. Without additional ethanol coming from a source such as cellulosic ethanol, such an increase in the maximum blending percentage would likely be problematic. The peak oil “story” often seems to be that because of inadequate supply, oil and other fossil fuel prices will rise, and substitutes will suddenly become competitive. Also, a country using the high-priced fuel tends to become less competitive compared to countries that don’t use the high-priced fuel. Here, the savings to an electric company is primarily a savings in fuel cost, that is, the cost of the natural gas, or coal or uranium. This is far less than the “net metering” benefit (offering a benefit equal to the retail cost of electricity) that is often used for grid-tied solar PV.
This approach has adverse ramifications, including high electricity costs, less grid stability, closure of some traditional natural gas power plants, and rising carbon dioxide emissions. The closest we can perhaps come is scaling up natural gas consumption some, and reducing coal’s current portion of the electricity mix.
If, on the other hand, natural gas prices don’t rise very much, not much of an increase in production is likely to be available. If the United States starts taking much nuclear off line, it will leave a big hole in electricity generation, especially in the Eastern part of the US. There may also be growth possibilities for items that I have not discussed, such as solar thermal for heating hot water, particularly in warm parts of the United States. What is included in the “biomass” portion of GeoBiomass seems to vary from agency to agency (BP, EIA, IEA), because of different definitions of what is included. Starting in 2005-2006, she decided to apply her skills to the question of how oil and other limits would affect the world. Imagine using light energy to perform chemistry with such durable precision and speed to create clear images in true color. Photosynthesis is probably as close to as effient a use of solar energy as we are going to find–it has been evoloving for a very long time.
The market seems smart with low future risk low and declining cost with lower externality choices. This future innovation can be counted upon as day follows night, correlation y^2 for learning curves are generally above 95%, this means innovation is exceptionally likely and solar and wind costs including installation and storage or grid control innovation are in continuous annual and accurate per decade decline. Even NG combined cycle has a favorable learning curve and so does ethanol and other biological and renewable energies.
We are finding more reserves of natural gas, drilling more, watching prices decline, and yet using only slightly more.
We are indeed a carbon based economy, and with low prices and abundant availability one would think the demand for natural gas would be sky-high.
Similarly, while the consumption of renewables is projected to double by 2035, total renewables are vastly overshadowed by fossil fuels in 2035. One argument against qualification is that most hydroelectric facilities were already built prior to adoption of renewable standards and policies by many states.[2] Another argument states that damming interrupts the flow of rivers and can harm local ecosystems and building large dams and reservoirs often involves displacing people and wildlife.

Whether surprising or not, these renewables are not substantially reducing our thirst for fossil fuels. Natural gas will buy time to further develop, cleaner fuels; hopefully there will be something at the end of the day, whether it takes 25 years or the end of the century.
Understanding the energy trends shaping our world is essential to managing risk and innovating solutions for business, government and community. In early 2014, natural gas prices have been higher, so natural gas production is rising again, roughly at a 4% annual rate.
Natural gas producers have found this pricing situation objectionable because natural gas prices tend to settle at a low level, relative to the cost of production. New natural gas power plants should be more efficient than old coal power plants in producing electricity, putting downward pressure on total coal plus natural gas consumption. Note that GeoBiomass, Biofuels, and Solar+Wind are hard to see on Figure 5, because of their small quantities.
Based on EIA data, biomass isn’t growing either in absolute amount or as a percentage of total energy consumed.
The remainder, which includes geothermal, wood and various waste products, is growing a bit.
If we want to reduce carbon emissions, conservation or switching from coal to natural gas would be more cost effective. This story is used to support a switch to wind and solar PV and high priced biofuels, since the expected high prices of fossil fuels will supposedly support the high cost of renewables.
It takes fossil fuels to maintain the electric grid and to produce any modern renewable, such as wind, or solar PV or wave energy.
In these situations, per capita use of electricity can be expected to be very low, because exports made with such high-priced electricity will be non-competitive in the world market-place.
The plant’s manpower needs and its cost of electric grid maintenance will be the same (or higher). It is also generally less than the “wholesale time of day” cost of electricity, often used for wind.
A recent article called Germany’s Electricity Market Out of Balance by the Institute for Energy Research summarizes these issues. We currently have a large amount of coal consumption relative to natural gas consumption (Figure 3), so we ourselves have good use for rising natural gas production, if it should actually take place.
Producers would like to export (a lot of) natural gas to Europe, as a way of jacking-up US natural gas prices. Germany and recently Belgium are starting to experience the effect of taking nuclear off line. Wind and solar PV are still growing, but it is hard to justify subsidies for them, as part of the electric grid system. The historical sociology is interesting, but they had innovative scientists back then, too. Long term, IMO, even NG will innovate into SYNG (synthetic gas) with less carbon then FF alternatives. Old nuclear is declining due to a negative learning curve(and future fuel shortage risk and neglected externalities) while new nuclear and fusion research are showing potential and investor interest. However, unconventional hydropower using currents, waves, and tidal energy to produce electricity is less disruptive and qualifies as renewable. A March 2012 report in the New York Times stated: “…the state of the electric car is dismal, the victim of hyped expectations, technological flops, high costs and a hostile political climate. In this role, he is responsible for leading the development of emerging and mature technology driven enterprises in the shale gas, natural gas, renewable energy and sustainability industries.
Also, we are using more efficient lighting, refrigerators, and monitors for computers, holding down electricity usage, and thus both coal and gas usage.
Similar to hydroelectricity, nuclear requires fossil fuels to build and maintain its plants making electricity.
The capacity expansion of the San Onofre plant in California in 2010 experienced premature wear and is now being decommissioned. Wind turbines need frequent replacement of parts, and solar PV needs new “inverters.” Wood and biomass will have long lives, if not overused, but these won’t keep the electric grid operating. There may be costs associated with monitoring the new sources of electricity added to the grid or additional balancing costs, and these need to be considered as well. It is hard to see how wind and solar PV can play a very big role in offsetting the nuclear loss. Solar PV does have uses off grid, if citizens want their own source of electricity, with their own inverters and back-up batteries.
Residential and commercial are somewhat similar in that they run by electricity and natural gas. General Motors has temporarily suspended production of the plug-in electric Chevy Volt because of low sales.
Conversion is not cheap; passenger vehicles can be converted for $10,000 each, parts and labor. Commuters embraced public transportation, with many metropolitan areas seeing 30 to 45 percent increases in use of public transportation in just one quarter. The hope, from producers’ point of view, is that exports will push US natural gas prices higher, making more natural gas production economic.
Better insulation is also helpful in reducing home heating needs (whether by electricity or natural gas). Many of the nuclear plants built in the 1970s are reaching  the ends of their useful lives.
Oil prices may fall so low (relative to the cost of oil production) that oil producers sell their land and increase dividends to shareholders instead; in fact, this seems to be happening already. There are also business uses of this type–for example, to operate equipment in a remote location. I am using EIA data for US renewables in Figure 7, since its long-term data series is probably as good as any for the US.
Also, oil prices are not staying high enough for a lot of oil producers, adding strains to the system (contrary to be belief of many that oil prices will rise!). From this it’s difficult to see a sector other than electrical generation that can truly benefit from and increase the usage of renewable energy. Unless we add a large number of new nuclear plants in the next few years, it seems likely that US generation of nuclear electricity will be falling over the next 20 years. To fix our problems, the new system needs to be cheaper than the current system using oil products.

How to treat genital herpes with colloidal silver quackwatch
Home remedies for high blood pressure control
Homeopathic treatment heart block
Herpesvirus type 5 keho
  • BAKULOVE, 23.12.2014 at 20:47:49
    Therapy Melissa Conrad physique, it causes.
  • KISA, 23.12.2014 at 15:19:37
    Excellent news Congress can cure other case often known as herpes lifestyle can?only.