Renewable Energy Is at the Center of the Presidential Debate 29 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Last night's presidential debate was a closely watched one because it was a townhall style meeting. Candidates had chance talk to voters face to face. It covered many topics including foreign policy, energy policy and the economy. But one thing that appears in most of the topics is renewable energy. I believe no matter who wins election, renewable energy, especially solar energy will be a booming sector, investors may want to invest sooner than later. Let us take a look at what happened last night debate.
- When it comes to energy policy, John McCain continuously supports nuclear, plus solar and wind energy. While Obama prefers solar and wind over other forms of renewables. Obama said the only solution to energy crisis is to develop renewable energy like solar and wind, as more drilling simply adds to the US's addiction to crude and increases green house emissions.
- When it comes to how to deal with Russia, again Obama believes petrol dollars strengthened Russia, and developing renewables will change this scenario, hence put more pressure on Russia.
- When it comes to Iran, according to Obama, the renewable energy policy can also change the way we deal with Iran. If the US uses solar energy and imports less oil from Iran, Iran will have less dollar to support terrorism.
Based on recent polls, Obama is leading McCain nation wide. The solar and wind energy sectors are most likely to benefit from new president no matter who we pick in November. Investors may want to invest now while the sector is beaten down during this market turmoil. Several names are attractive and these companies have great management teams.
First one is Energy Conversion Devices (ENER). This company has a strong growth record. Mark Morelli, president and CEO noted in a recent meeting, "We are in the final stages of site selection for a new 120 MW solar-cell manufacturing facility. We are also pleased to announce that we are accelerating the growth of our nameplate capacity to 420 MWs in fiscal year 2010 and to 720 MWs in fiscal 2011. The earning of this quarter will be exceeding expectation based on the CEO in the last conference call.
The second one is First Solar (FSLR). It is the No.1 in this sector in terms of sales and market cap. It is way under valued at this price, and stock is expected to rise quickly when we approach elections in 4 weeks.
Finally we shouldkeep in mind that the solar tax credit bill has been passed and signed by President Bush, so it is official now. This created a base for the solar sector for the next 8 years to come.
Stock position: None.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 29 comments:
For more information, see my series of SA articles on the storage sector.
A post on Carpe Diem is against energy sufficiency on the basis that other people's oil is cheaper! Like, should we also be coffee independent by the same logic? I can't really buy such simplistic thinking. Doesn't the balance of trade and our economy come in there somewhere?
The potential for alternative energy in the USA is quite a small fraction of our total future use. We would gain as much, if not more, by simply increasing energy efficiency in buildings, vehicles, appliances, etc. by a surprisingly small percentage.
McCain is perhaps a little more realistic than Obama on the energy front. On the other hand, McCain is less convincing on his grasp of economics. Sad, isn't it?
Roll on the NAU ;-)
T.C.
We now have way less than 1% solar and wind power in the U.S. We are constantly told that because of the intermittancy of solar and wind, they are not viable big energy sources. Really? Then how has Denmark managed to already have 20% wind power? The intermittancy problem somehow wasn't a problem there was it? It's propaganda, plain and simple. We could easily have 80% wind and solar power by the middle of the century. The SciAm artile shows how by just building solar power plants in the southwest we could have 69% solar power by 2050. And that is a conservative estimate. Stop believing the lies. Also stop believing the lies about nuclear power. Read the pdf The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy, and read what cleanwisconsin.org has to say about the many many problems of nuclear power. One of it's biggest weaknesses is the billions of gallons of water needed to cool each reactor. And when we are worried about terrorists and nuclear proliferation, why would we want to build thousands of nuclear reactors all over the world, spreading the availablility of fissionable materials worldwide. It just makes no sense.
Look at how worried we are now over Iran's supposed pursuit of nuclear energy. That's just one country. Nuclear power doesn't even make us energy independent, we import 90% of our uranium, with plans to import 20% of it from Russia in the coming years. Nuclear is the wrong choice. Wind and solar are cheaper to get up and running and much much quicker to get up and running. They can even produce power as they are being built because they are modular. Nuclear plants cost three times as much per kilowatt to build as wind farms cost. I have only scratched the surface of what is wrong with nuclear energy.
kevin, can you please email me? i have a question for you
sweitzman at gmail.
thanks
scott
A vigorous rebuttal indeed. A little knowledge can certainly be misleading. There is of course a place for alternative energy and we should do all of it, in fact about 20% of my portfolio is in GEX as we speak and 10% in an algaeic biodiesel Company. Another 10% sits in a Chinese wind turbine Co. But, with reference to your 80%: 80% of what?. By mid-centrury, crude oil and NG energy production might well be low enough to perhaps make the total provided by alternative energy close to your quoted percentage but the "American way of life" will be long gone, I reckon.
Makes me glad to be old and retired ;-)
T.C.
> jack
Would you please write an article about a stock that you don't like, so I wouldn't lose money.
ENER, I can see but FSLR? I would buy a married put with each comparable purchase.
I see that this is another review about some more stocks which you don't own. Why not?
You have a semiconductor background with an undisclosed grad degree. Have you ever worked in the Solar industry? If not, what do you think about AMD? Please tell me you hate it.
Water, Water, Water. How do you think all those solar panels will be cleaned considering the locations they are to be built in, will it be with water imported from some distant location or some other Oil based chemical.
As for 'dealing' with Russia, the optimal approach is to ignore them. Try to remember that there is a huge market for Russian energy resources in Asia, because despite her talk about sponsoring Georgian membership in NATO, Ms Merkel recently entertained some top Russians and gave them a heartfelt thanks for continuing with their Baltic pipeline project.
Do both, and when the twain shall me we will need a lot less solar and wind than what scares folks now. And, reducing 10% of current consumption is a lot easier than 100-100% growth of the other; proof: the 1973 embargo AND THE NEXT INTERUPTION.
FRFLYER - you ain't got much of a handle on the truth of nuc. You might consider searching for new sources.
wayfarer - solar thermal requires heat exchangers and turbines and generators; solar PV requires none of that. And THAT FOLKS IS WHY WE NEED 10 SOLAR PV FARMS IN 10 SUNBELT STATES 1/10 THE SIZE OF 100 MILES SQUARE. FOR MOST OF YOU THAT WOULD BE 10 MILES BY 10 MILES.
If I were Putin, I would start selling dollars on a constant basis, say $10 billion a day til the Presidential elections. An Obama win would be preferential to a McCain victory and it would help the ruble's purchasing power.
LET'S EXAMINE FORMER PERFORMANCE AGAINST CAMPAIGN PROMISES.
McCain nor Obama are going to fix things, just as Bush and Clinton et.al did not:
1) fix the energy problem; did not get us off an oil addiction; did not fix transportation; and they've had since the 1973 embargo.
2) permitted the bankiing fiasco's of the 90's and then again of 2005-2008; and they had the means to prevent both. Where's the uptick rule? We stop the shorting of an expanding list of financial stocks - what about the rest? WHERE ARE THE REGULATORS.
3) CEO'S and their BOARDROOMS, AND DC, AND WALL STREET should be strung-up. And for the new guys, no one gets paid more than 20x the lowest paid person on the payroll (no, not even the average!).
) It is an absolute myth that one has to pay a lot to get the best. Look at the proof.
No one, no one, is worth a lifetime income in one year.
Take back the bonus', or the assets if they can be found; if not, jail time will do.
And for the future, take the 10-20% reduction is financial management fees (you know, the 0.1-0.2% fees), and give it to the Government to pay for the bailout, instead of us folks. And when it's paid off, keep the tax in place to pay for the regulators that have not been doing their jobs, but may in the future. It's called Pay as you USE, or require.
There, i feel better. Now you pass this on to your influential folks.
Again, electrify the existing railroads by getting rid of the diesel, and electrify all the inter/intrastate hiways with electric ferries for goods and people and hybrids. Within those same right-of-ways, install the beefed up electrical grid that takes all the wind, solar and nuclear power from the netherlands to the cities, just as we do now. The existing grid is everywhere. The new grid goes where we already have right-of-ways, go either up or down or a little wider; the folks adjacent to the right-of-ways are already used to it.
We may have different views but the concensus is that it CAN be done and will be ultimately necessary. The only problem would appear to be is the government and they who control it (vested interests in the suppression of significant growth of alternative energy).
Great thread!
T.C.
About 80% of US oil consumption is for transportation - autos, trucks, trains, aircraft, ships - with the vast majority for automobiles. (The other 20% goes to home heating, chemicals, road surfacing, etc.) There are roughly 200 million cars and light trucks on the road in the US today, and new sales in a good year might be 15 million. If everyone were required to buy a hybrid or CNG-powered vehicle, the replacement cycle would be at least 13 years, and hybrids might reduce oil consumption by 40% (my Ford Escape hybrid doesn't achieve that). I doubt that many people will be satisfied with all-electric cars that have a range <100 miles and a long recharge time. And there's no viable substitute for liquid fuels for aircraft. So we're stuck with heavy oil consumption for the foreseeable future - way beyond the tenure of a presidential term - mitigated only by more domestic production. Any politician or activist who continues to resist new domestic oil production (not just off shore, but ANWR, oil shale, oil sands, biofuels, synfuels, etc.) is extremely naive and unrealistic.
Nice to think about hundreds of square miles of solar panels in the AZ desert, or windmills down the spine of the midwest from Canada to Mexico - but who's going to build the transmission links to get this intermittent power to the east coast population centers? What are the transmission losses? Windmills work at about 30% utilization, and solar collectors at an average less than 50%, so we'll still need local power plants (coal or nuclear) to produce upward of 50% of base load. I for one trust a regulated industry to determine the most cost-effective solution (considering environmental costs and risks) than the government. Subsidies only distort the cost-benefit trade.
So I conclude that all sources of energy production are needed, as well as conservation, with the best solution for any given location determined by cost/benefit analysis and experience - free of subsidy. And the transition to new energy sources, new vehicles, and a new electric grid will take many decades and many $billions of investment, not the quick and cheap transition implied by earlier posts.
The investment opportunities? Maybe a few solar cell and windmill companies will succeed, but I'll put my bets on established suppliers (GE, Siemens, ABB, etc.) and forward-looking utilities who know how to deploy new generation and transmission alternatives (e.g. Excelon).
As to the problem of fuel for aircraft, the news of the 60 Mph pedal car inspires. Any one ready to try a pedal plane? Think of the power output of 300 passengers being told to pedal harder or the plane will go down! I would insist on the return of free meals in exchange. And a beer on landing.
The crisis is upon us, the jerks played games and are still Found Undering us. They scared the Public into giving control to the Former President of Goldman.
"We are not just helping Wallstreet, we are helping Mainstreet too." People thought Mainstreet meant them. They didn't know that it meant other corporations.
3 Month LIBOR keeps rising, When it finally stabilizes or drops will signal the end of the Selloff.
Repeal the Mark to Market rule immediately. You won't know what its worth, But "You won't know what its Really Worth."
2 Dow Stks down a combined $18, whats the multiplier these days? 9-10?
Not enough BTUs IN.
3412 BTUs = 1 KW hour, I read.
home.comcast.net/~bpayne37/pnmelectric...
Ask how many Kilo, Mega watts OUT from alternate electric generation technologies, then estimate the BTUs IN to produce this electricity by conventional methods.
If the input number is less 3412, then suspicion of fraud may be warranted?
But some real business opportunities may exist for those who want to sell renewable electric generation technologies to those who may not understand the first law of thermodynamics?
Alt-E plays are not limited to solar arrays and wind turbine towers: while momentarily awesome to look at, they are real eye-sores over time. Many Geothermals are revving up turbines in the next 12-24 months. You might want to catch the wave. It's one-stepchild worth a 10-100 times current valuations.
home.comcast.net/~bpayne37/pnmelectric...
regards
www.google.com/search?...