frflyer's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/121368/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/145085-adr-overview-which-stocks-look-good-which-don-t?source=feed#comment-565231 565231
No dividends from solar companies means next to nothing. Dividends are almost never paid by fast growing companies, who plow profits back in, to finance expansion. It's not good use of capital at that stage of their development.]]> Sat, 27 Jun 2009 22:07:56 -0400
No dividends from solar companies means next to nothing. Dividends are almost never paid by fast growing companies, who plow profits back in, to finance expansion. It's not good use of capital at that stage of their development.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/143682-a-power-energy-generation-systems-headwind-or-tailwind?source=feed#comment-559550 559550
"The second phase will cost an additional $90 million."

I'm a little confused by the above paragraph. How is $155 million dollars expensive for 1.5 GW generating capacity? A nuclear plant of same size would be about 50 times that much, at maybe $6.5 billion to build.

Or am I just misreading what is being said here?]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:33:12 -0400
"The second phase will cost an additional $90 million."

I'm a little confused by the above paragraph. How is $155 million dollars expensive for 1.5 GW generating capacity? A nuclear plant of same size would be about 50 times that much, at maybe $6.5 billion to build.

Or am I just misreading what is being said here?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/141724-china-s-first-round-of-solar-project-applications?source=feed#comment-536056 536056
China recently upped their intentions for wind energy, from the 30 GWs that you mention, to 100 GW by 2020.
I am bullish on APWR also. I got my foot in the door at about $6.75 and so far haven't regretted it.]]> Sun, 07 Jun 2009 16:14:54 -0400
China recently upped their intentions for wind energy, from the 30 GWs that you mention, to 100 GW by 2020.
I am bullish on APWR also. I got my foot in the door at about $6.75 and so far haven't regretted it.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/141537-renesola-s-new-business-model-is-designed-to-beat-wall-street?source=feed#comment-536051 536051
I also believe CSP will change how people think about renewable energy, when they realize the huge potential for power and the potential for low electricity prices from CSP, which are already lower than from PV. Too many people still think renewable energy is an unrealistic pipe dream. How many have even heard of CSP? Not many, if my own experience of talking to people is any indication.
When they understand the huge potential of CSP combined with that from PV and wind, they start to see things a little differently.




]]> Sun, 07 Jun 2009 16:10:11 -0400
I also believe CSP will change how people think about renewable energy, when they realize the huge potential for power and the potential for low electricity prices from CSP, which are already lower than from PV. Too many people still think renewable energy is an unrealistic pipe dream. How many have even heard of CSP? Not many, if my own experience of talking to people is any indication.
When they understand the huge potential of CSP combined with that from PV and wind, they start to see things a little differently.




]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/141537-renesola-s-new-business-model-is-designed-to-beat-wall-street?source=feed#comment-536044 536044 You may be right about the stimulous money, but IMO, stimulating solar thermal growth is a good thing. It will even help to integrate the intermittent energy from PV and wind into the grid. It's dispatchable power ( with heat storage) will better facilitate this, than base load power from coal and nuclear. And it is best suited for replacing the base load power from coal plants. There will be oppurtunities to invest in this when the market becomes more favorable for IPOs.
A price on carbon emissions, as well as a national renewable energy standard should stimulate the solar and wind sectors.
]]> Sun, 07 Jun 2009 15:58:46 -0400 You may be right about the stimulous money, but IMO, stimulating solar thermal growth is a good thing. It will even help to integrate the intermittent energy from PV and wind into the grid. It's dispatchable power ( with heat storage) will better facilitate this, than base load power from coal and nuclear. And it is best suited for replacing the base load power from coal plants. There will be oppurtunities to invest in this when the market becomes more favorable for IPOs.
A price on carbon emissions, as well as a national renewable energy standard should stimulate the solar and wind sectors.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/141098-evergreen-solar-roe-fcfe-analysis?source=feed#comment-536015 536015
In the 50s and 60s, while government grew and taxes as % of GDP grew; savings, real wages, home ownership, and productivity all grew, to create the working middle class as we know it today.( or used to know) Poverty among the elderly went from 6 in 10 to 1 in 10 during this time.
This was the greatest economic growth anyone could expect or hope for, all while Friedman was writing his supply side economics theory, which have now had over 25 years in which savings, real wages, productivity, economic mobility, and the ability to afford a home have all gone down and poverty has gone up. The federal deficit has grown by about $11 trillion, a savings and loan disaster, a credit disaster and a real estate bust all have resulted as well. Friedman has been proven wrong coming and going. Real wages haven't risen in 30 years, while the piece of the pie owned by the top 5% and the income of the top 5% has gone through the roof. During the 50s and 60s, one wage earner could support a family quite well. Now it takes two wage earners, who are deeply in debt, to do the same thing.

The mixed economies of Europe are more proof that big government and higher taxes are not anithetical to economic growth.
Tax cuts for the rich are a scam to reward the few at the expense of the rest of us. 80% of Americans have not benefited from any economic growth since Reagan. But in 2005 alone, the INCREASE in income of the top 5% was more than the TOTAL income of the lowest 20%.

Americans resoundingly voted against the failed economic policies of supply side economics in November. Get over it.

]]> Sun, 07 Jun 2009 15:33:54 -0400
In the 50s and 60s, while government grew and taxes as % of GDP grew; savings, real wages, home ownership, and productivity all grew, to create the working middle class as we know it today.( or used to know) Poverty among the elderly went from 6 in 10 to 1 in 10 during this time.
This was the greatest economic growth anyone could expect or hope for, all while Friedman was writing his supply side economics theory, which have now had over 25 years in which savings, real wages, productivity, economic mobility, and the ability to afford a home have all gone down and poverty has gone up. The federal deficit has grown by about $11 trillion, a savings and loan disaster, a credit disaster and a real estate bust all have resulted as well. Friedman has been proven wrong coming and going. Real wages haven't risen in 30 years, while the piece of the pie owned by the top 5% and the income of the top 5% has gone through the roof. During the 50s and 60s, one wage earner could support a family quite well. Now it takes two wage earners, who are deeply in debt, to do the same thing.

The mixed economies of Europe are more proof that big government and higher taxes are not anithetical to economic growth.
Tax cuts for the rich are a scam to reward the few at the expense of the rest of us. 80% of Americans have not benefited from any economic growth since Reagan. But in 2005 alone, the INCREASE in income of the top 5% was more than the TOTAL income of the lowest 20%.

Americans resoundingly voted against the failed economic policies of supply side economics in November. Get over it.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/140998-solar-energy-continues-to-shine?source=feed#comment-535994 535994

As far as intermittency that the grid can handle; what the author says about a 20% limit only applies to a non-smart grid and to one with no energy storage technology. Sweeping generalizations like his are misleading.
]]> Sun, 07 Jun 2009 15:05:01 -0400

As far as intermittency that the grid can handle; what the author says about a 20% limit only applies to a non-smart grid and to one with no energy storage technology. Sweeping generalizations like his are misleading.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/140599-burgeoning-bioplastics-metabolix-s-breakthrough?source=feed#comment-535971 535971
MBLX, with their PHA, is on the cutting edge of bioplastics. Their process has far fewer steps than those for producing PLA, which requires several fermentation steps and needs to be heated to about 150 F to be compostable. Metabolix uses genetically engineered bacteria to digest plant sugars and starch, producing PHA plastic that is simply harvested.
They have another technology that infuses the bacteria into the germinal stage of switchgrass plants, which then grow with the plastic already in the leaves and stems.
Their new plant in Iowa will use corn as the feedstock, but they expect to use swithgrass in the future.
]]> Sun, 07 Jun 2009 14:49:08 -0400
MBLX, with their PHA, is on the cutting edge of bioplastics. Their process has far fewer steps than those for producing PLA, which requires several fermentation steps and needs to be heated to about 150 F to be compostable. Metabolix uses genetically engineered bacteria to digest plant sugars and starch, producing PHA plastic that is simply harvested.
They have another technology that infuses the bacteria into the germinal stage of switchgrass plants, which then grow with the plastic already in the leaves and stems.
Their new plant in Iowa will use corn as the feedstock, but they expect to use swithgrass in the future.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/139803-as-solar-sector-flies-pay-attention-to-values?source=feed#comment-520613 520613 They are apples and oranges. Solar thermal with heat storage is centralized dispatchable power which the NREL expected to be rather expensive for the first handful of plants, but to rapidly fall in costs as experience and economy of scale come into play.
Thin film and normal silicon should serve different markets as well. The more efficient silicon panels should do well where available space is an issue, like rooftops. Thin film should do better where space is less an issue.
For investors, there are no solar thermal stocks so far.


]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 23:08:40 -0400 They are apples and oranges. Solar thermal with heat storage is centralized dispatchable power which the NREL expected to be rather expensive for the first handful of plants, but to rapidly fall in costs as experience and economy of scale come into play.
Thin film and normal silicon should serve different markets as well. The more efficient silicon panels should do well where available space is an issue, like rooftops. Thin film should do better where space is less an issue.
For investors, there are no solar thermal stocks so far.


]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/104971-investing-in-wind-energy-when-will-growth-peak?source=feed#comment-507654 507654
CLH
"it seems that only nuclear makes any sense."

It will take 10 years, at least, to build any new nuclear power plants. In those ten years, we will have built 100 GW of wind and hundreds of gigawatts of PV solar and solar thermal. Not only are wind and solar two to three times faster to build, the electricity prices for wind and solar will be much cheaper than from new nuclear. Estimates for new nuclear power are 12-17 cents/kWh. Solar thermal is already at that price, and will be below 10 cents in about 4 years, and from 4-8 cents/kWh when the industry gets up to scale in ten years or less.

Subsidies? You must be kidding. Nuclear has received about $500 billion over the last 50 years. Oil and gas get $39 billion every year and coal gets $8 billion/ before the new subsidies in the recent economic bills.
Oil has been subsidized continuously since 1919.

There couldn't be a worse argument against renewable energy.

westcoastclimateequity...
Global Warming Solutions for Governments

"Behind fossil fuels’ global dominance lies the shocking fact that governments still subsidize them with tax-breaks and price supports, some dating back to World War I. The total global give-away to fossil fuels comes to more than $210 billion a year."

"In 2006, Earth Track estimated that the US oil and gas industry received $39 billion in federal energy subsidies, and the coal industry a further $8 billion."]]> Sun, 17 May 2009 19:54:13 -0400
CLH
"it seems that only nuclear makes any sense."

It will take 10 years, at least, to build any new nuclear power plants. In those ten years, we will have built 100 GW of wind and hundreds of gigawatts of PV solar and solar thermal. Not only are wind and solar two to three times faster to build, the electricity prices for wind and solar will be much cheaper than from new nuclear. Estimates for new nuclear power are 12-17 cents/kWh. Solar thermal is already at that price, and will be below 10 cents in about 4 years, and from 4-8 cents/kWh when the industry gets up to scale in ten years or less.

Subsidies? You must be kidding. Nuclear has received about $500 billion over the last 50 years. Oil and gas get $39 billion every year and coal gets $8 billion/ before the new subsidies in the recent economic bills.
Oil has been subsidized continuously since 1919.

There couldn't be a worse argument against renewable energy.

westcoastclimateequity...
Global Warming Solutions for Governments

"Behind fossil fuels’ global dominance lies the shocking fact that governments still subsidize them with tax-breaks and price supports, some dating back to World War I. The total global give-away to fossil fuels comes to more than $210 billion a year."

"In 2006, Earth Track estimated that the US oil and gas industry received $39 billion in federal energy subsidies, and the coal industry a further $8 billion."]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/104971-investing-in-wind-energy-when-will-growth-peak?source=feed#comment-507652 507652 Sun, 17 May 2009 19:53:17 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/138010-deal-for-world-s-largest-offshore-wind-farm-finalized?source=feed#comment-507621 507621
I think Freya answered your question about wind and oil.

buoy

I agree that smaller countries, that have more homogenous demographics and are generally not as complex as the U.S., have an easier time making decisions. However, we have far more potential for wind and solar energy than they do, because of our vast wide open spaces. And of course, we have more geothermal potential than most also.

The U.S. doesn't lead in installed wind or solar, but we increased our wind energy by 8.3 GW last year, the world's biggest increase, with China second at over 6 GW.
If we can improve on that rate of growth, we'll have a substantial amount of wind energy by 2020-2030.
8.3 x 11 years =91.3 GW by 2020.

8.3 GW x 30% capacity factor for wind = the equivalent of building 2.5 nuclear power plants of average size in one year. Try doing that with nuclear.

Ferdinand
I'm not sure what you are getting at. What doesn't make sense? Wind energy created lots of jobs in the U.S. last year, a 70% increase to 85,000, which is more people than employed mining coal and running coal plants.





]]> Sun, 17 May 2009 19:08:14 -0400
I think Freya answered your question about wind and oil.

buoy

I agree that smaller countries, that have more homogenous demographics and are generally not as complex as the U.S., have an easier time making decisions. However, we have far more potential for wind and solar energy than they do, because of our vast wide open spaces. And of course, we have more geothermal potential than most also.

The U.S. doesn't lead in installed wind or solar, but we increased our wind energy by 8.3 GW last year, the world's biggest increase, with China second at over 6 GW.
If we can improve on that rate of growth, we'll have a substantial amount of wind energy by 2020-2030.
8.3 x 11 years =91.3 GW by 2020.

8.3 GW x 30% capacity factor for wind = the equivalent of building 2.5 nuclear power plants of average size in one year. Try doing that with nuclear.

Ferdinand
I'm not sure what you are getting at. What doesn't make sense? Wind energy created lots of jobs in the U.S. last year, a 70% increase to 85,000, which is more people than employed mining coal and running coal plants.





]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/134487-solar-industry-s-long-term-outlook?source=feed#comment-503172 503172
"As for solar, I think the best market for it is rooftop for individual homeowners."

We need both the distributed energy of rooftop solar and the utility scale solar of CSP CPV and PV, as well as wind. It's not an either or, but all, IMO.

CPV can run factories, schools, office buildings, etc. at or near the end user. Not in all climes, but where there is good radiance. A company in Israel is producing hot water and electricity from CPV. CPV cells need cooling. They use water to cool the solar cells and thereby get hot water as well as power. They say they are getting over 70% solar conversion efficiency.

CSP (solar thermal) is unique among renewables, because with molten salt heat storage, it can provide steady dispatchable power. This can replace base load power that we now get from coal plants. In one way, it's better than baseload - dispatchability. See at this link:

www.altenergystocks.co...

And CSP w/storage can produce electricity at night or during cloudy periods. Plants are being built with 6 hours heat storage and twice that much is feasible.

Power prices from CSP are already much lower than from PV and are expected to fall quickly to under 10 cents/kWh. My bet is that this will happen in 4 years(based on NREL and other estimates and observations of current rate of CSP projects approved already, which is happening faster than the NREL predicted, although the credit crunch is holding up projects right now).
4-8 cents/kWh is projected for when the industry gets up to scale, probably in less than 10 years.


rooferguy

"When ratepayers and Public Utilities Commissions realize that the costs TO THE CUSTOMER are higher for central solar compared to DG solar there will be renewed emphasis on installations on commercial and residential rooftops."

I want to see a renewed interest in both.

There is a need for more than just distributed energy.
And CSP can be day and night. If you read the article at altenergystocks.com above, you will understand why we need CSP in the mix for balancing the grid. We can have less baseload as a percentage of the total grid, and achieve a smarter, better balanced and more efficient grid. CSP is the best tool we have to achieve that.

related article:
climateprogress.org/20.../

and check out Desertec or Trec

www.solarserver.de/sol...

www.desertec.org/

www.trec-uk.org.uk/


www.trec-uk.org.uk/ima...

Look at this map (link above) showing red blocks superimposed on North Africa, that represent how much area it would take to power Europe or the Mid East and North Africa, or the World.

The Desertrec plan would provide power to Europe, North Africa and the Mid East using CSP plants. Some of the plants would also provide hot water, and sea water desalinization. - Combined heat and power.
HVDC transmission lines would distribute the power over long distances with low line loss. I think the loss is 3% over 1000 kilometers.

]]> Thu, 14 May 2009 03:05:20 -0400
"As for solar, I think the best market for it is rooftop for individual homeowners."

We need both the distributed energy of rooftop solar and the utility scale solar of CSP CPV and PV, as well as wind. It's not an either or, but all, IMO.

CPV can run factories, schools, office buildings, etc. at or near the end user. Not in all climes, but where there is good radiance. A company in Israel is producing hot water and electricity from CPV. CPV cells need cooling. They use water to cool the solar cells and thereby get hot water as well as power. They say they are getting over 70% solar conversion efficiency.

CSP (solar thermal) is unique among renewables, because with molten salt heat storage, it can provide steady dispatchable power. This can replace base load power that we now get from coal plants. In one way, it's better than baseload - dispatchability. See at this link:

www.altenergystocks.co...

And CSP w/storage can produce electricity at night or during cloudy periods. Plants are being built with 6 hours heat storage and twice that much is feasible.

Power prices from CSP are already much lower than from PV and are expected to fall quickly to under 10 cents/kWh. My bet is that this will happen in 4 years(based on NREL and other estimates and observations of current rate of CSP projects approved already, which is happening faster than the NREL predicted, although the credit crunch is holding up projects right now).
4-8 cents/kWh is projected for when the industry gets up to scale, probably in less than 10 years.


rooferguy

"When ratepayers and Public Utilities Commissions realize that the costs TO THE CUSTOMER are higher for central solar compared to DG solar there will be renewed emphasis on installations on commercial and residential rooftops."

I want to see a renewed interest in both.

There is a need for more than just distributed energy.
And CSP can be day and night. If you read the article at altenergystocks.com above, you will understand why we need CSP in the mix for balancing the grid. We can have less baseload as a percentage of the total grid, and achieve a smarter, better balanced and more efficient grid. CSP is the best tool we have to achieve that.

related article:
climateprogress.org/20.../

and check out Desertec or Trec

www.solarserver.de/sol...

www.desertec.org/

www.trec-uk.org.uk/


www.trec-uk.org.uk/ima...

Look at this map (link above) showing red blocks superimposed on North Africa, that represent how much area it would take to power Europe or the Mid East and North Africa, or the World.

The Desertrec plan would provide power to Europe, North Africa and the Mid East using CSP plants. Some of the plants would also provide hot water, and sea water desalinization. - Combined heat and power.
HVDC transmission lines would distribute the power over long distances with low line loss. I think the loss is 3% over 1000 kilometers.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/137151-energy-conversion-s-earnings-and-my-long-and-sordid-past-with-solar?source=feed#comment-502355 502355
www.eurotrib.com/story...

Excellent article on costs and economics of wind energy and why feed in tariffs make sense. How wind integrates into the grid. Wind energy stabilizes electricity pricing, lowering the overall cost of electricity to consumers.

Based on this article, I think we need to look seriously at feed in tariffs for wind and maybe solar.

"studies in Germany, Denmark and Spain prove that the net cost of feed-in tariffs in these countries is actually negative, i.e. a apparent fixed cost imposed on consumers ends up reducing their bills!"

"as noted in my text, wind is already cost-competitive with other technologies; it is its high fixed cost, lower marginal cost which makes it require a feed-in tariff, not its lack of competitivity. But there is no subsidy per se: as I note, the overall effect of the feed-in tariff is to lower the price paid by the rate payers who are bearing that tariff."

]]> Wed, 13 May 2009 13:45:49 -0400
www.eurotrib.com/story...

Excellent article on costs and economics of wind energy and why feed in tariffs make sense. How wind integrates into the grid. Wind energy stabilizes electricity pricing, lowering the overall cost of electricity to consumers.

Based on this article, I think we need to look seriously at feed in tariffs for wind and maybe solar.

"studies in Germany, Denmark and Spain prove that the net cost of feed-in tariffs in these countries is actually negative, i.e. a apparent fixed cost imposed on consumers ends up reducing their bills!"

"as noted in my text, wind is already cost-competitive with other technologies; it is its high fixed cost, lower marginal cost which makes it require a feed-in tariff, not its lack of competitivity. But there is no subsidy per se: as I note, the overall effect of the feed-in tariff is to lower the price paid by the rate payers who are bearing that tariff."

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/137151-energy-conversion-s-earnings-and-my-long-and-sordid-past-with-solar?source=feed#comment-502269 502269
You keep posting this nonsense, why?

"Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic methods capture 5 to 6 watts per square meter. There is no economy of size in either technology. Dividing the watts you need by those values gives the land area in square meters needed to produce the juice. The numbers are astronomical "


I'm speaking of the statement that there is no economy of scale. That is flat out wrong. I have explained to you before, that solar thermal is more cost effective, the bigger the plant size. That's because the central plant costs are shared by more and more solar collectors. This means adding more capacity has a diminishing cost. The NREL sees economy of scale playing a large part in quickly reducing the cost of building solar thermal plants. Large scale manufacturing of plant components also brings economy of scale. The first factories to mass produce components are still being built.

As far as area used, solar thermal could power the whole country with less land than used for coal mining and coal plants. That is effective use of land by any measure. And it would take about a million times as much land to produce the same energy growing corn for ethanol.

I'm sure your 1.2 watts per square meter for wind, is counting the 97.5% of the land between the turbines.
They only use 2.5% of the land where they are sited.
A 2 or 3 MW turbine sits on land about the size of a parking space. The area between turbines can be productively used for agriculture, left to nature, or even filled with solar panels.

]]> Wed, 13 May 2009 12:55:20 -0400
You keep posting this nonsense, why?

"Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic methods capture 5 to 6 watts per square meter. There is no economy of size in either technology. Dividing the watts you need by those values gives the land area in square meters needed to produce the juice. The numbers are astronomical "


I'm speaking of the statement that there is no economy of scale. That is flat out wrong. I have explained to you before, that solar thermal is more cost effective, the bigger the plant size. That's because the central plant costs are shared by more and more solar collectors. This means adding more capacity has a diminishing cost. The NREL sees economy of scale playing a large part in quickly reducing the cost of building solar thermal plants. Large scale manufacturing of plant components also brings economy of scale. The first factories to mass produce components are still being built.

As far as area used, solar thermal could power the whole country with less land than used for coal mining and coal plants. That is effective use of land by any measure. And it would take about a million times as much land to produce the same energy growing corn for ethanol.

I'm sure your 1.2 watts per square meter for wind, is counting the 97.5% of the land between the turbines.
They only use 2.5% of the land where they are sited.
A 2 or 3 MW turbine sits on land about the size of a parking space. The area between turbines can be productively used for agriculture, left to nature, or even filled with solar panels.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/137089-smart-doe-battery-manufacturing-grants-and-dilution-for-dummies?source=feed#comment-501188 501188


]]> Tue, 12 May 2009 18:16:24 -0400


]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/127471-the-texas-wind-emergency-the-smart-grid-and-the-dumb-grid?source=feed#comment-500892 500892
You have it exactly backwards. Wind and solar can be built right now, 2-3 times as fast as new nuclear plants. We don't have time to wait for nuclear. I'm not ruling nuclear out, but it is a mid term solution at best, and definitely not short term, as it will take at least a decade to build new plants. In the meantime, we can build hundreds of gigawatts of wind and solar. This includes solar thermal and PV solar.
Wind and solar thermal projects can be completed in 3-5 years including the planning stage. With heat storage, solar thermal will provide steady dispatchable power day and night.

In ten years, new nuclear electric prices will not be able to compete with any form of solar or wind.
Costs of building nuke plants are skyrocketing. Estimates for power from new nuclear are 12-17 cents/kWh. Wind is already cheaper. Solar thermal is 12-17 cents now and will be 4-8 cents in ten years and under 10 cents in about 4 years. PV will also be in the single digits by then.

Wind energy lowers electricity prices to consumers over time because of it's price reliability. Solar and wind both promise non volatile energy prices as they don't rely on fuels that have wild price swings.

www.eurotrib.com/story...


Tiny Tim

"Demand Response [DR], in the form of interruptible service to large customers has been around for 50 years and has nothing to do with a Smart Grid"

Only the first half of this statement is true. Demand Response has a lot to do with a Smart Grid. It may have been around for 50 years, but not in the form it will take now.


johndowd
"shouldn't rely on "wind-power"

ABSURD!

Spain has 12% wind power, Denmark has 20% wind power. Read the article at the link above.
And here we are with maybe 1% from wind, with people like you arguing that it can't work.
The usual uninformed talking points don't cut it.

We subsidized the internet and high speed information highway over the past 35 years with about $400 billion.
We subsidized the building of the railroads, biotech, electrification of the country and agriculture. But as long as it's not the renewable energy that you have an irrational opposition to, it's alright to subsidize everything else.]]> Tue, 12 May 2009 15:10:18 -0400
You have it exactly backwards. Wind and solar can be built right now, 2-3 times as fast as new nuclear plants. We don't have time to wait for nuclear. I'm not ruling nuclear out, but it is a mid term solution at best, and definitely not short term, as it will take at least a decade to build new plants. In the meantime, we can build hundreds of gigawatts of wind and solar. This includes solar thermal and PV solar.
Wind and solar thermal projects can be completed in 3-5 years including the planning stage. With heat storage, solar thermal will provide steady dispatchable power day and night.

In ten years, new nuclear electric prices will not be able to compete with any form of solar or wind.
Costs of building nuke plants are skyrocketing. Estimates for power from new nuclear are 12-17 cents/kWh. Wind is already cheaper. Solar thermal is 12-17 cents now and will be 4-8 cents in ten years and under 10 cents in about 4 years. PV will also be in the single digits by then.

Wind energy lowers electricity prices to consumers over time because of it's price reliability. Solar and wind both promise non volatile energy prices as they don't rely on fuels that have wild price swings.

www.eurotrib.com/story...


Tiny Tim

"Demand Response [DR], in the form of interruptible service to large customers has been around for 50 years and has nothing to do with a Smart Grid"

Only the first half of this statement is true. Demand Response has a lot to do with a Smart Grid. It may have been around for 50 years, but not in the form it will take now.


johndowd
"shouldn't rely on "wind-power"

ABSURD!

Spain has 12% wind power, Denmark has 20% wind power. Read the article at the link above.
And here we are with maybe 1% from wind, with people like you arguing that it can't work.
The usual uninformed talking points don't cut it.

We subsidized the internet and high speed information highway over the past 35 years with about $400 billion.
We subsidized the building of the railroads, biotech, electrification of the country and agriculture. But as long as it's not the renewable energy that you have an irrational opposition to, it's alright to subsidize everything else.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/127471-the-texas-wind-emergency-the-smart-grid-and-the-dumb-grid?source=feed#comment-500833 500833
Now look who's spreading disinformation. The subsidies for renwable energy pale in comparison with subsidies for oil gas and coal.

heatisonline.org/c...

"subsidy programmes from 1918 are still in place"
"I'm not aware of any oil and gas subsidy that has ever been phased out," said Koplow, the leading expert on U.S. energy subsidies"

"in a time of skyrocketing oil prices and profits, why did the George W. Bush administration in 2005 authorise an additional 32.9 billion dollars in new subsidies over a five-year period?"

"Koplow's 2007 report to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development puts the annual U.S. subsidy at an average of 39 billion dollars a year, when the costs of guarding oil lanes in the Persian/Arab Gulf, and the Alaska Pipeline are included. This does not include any costs from the Iraq war"

"Estimating U.S. oil and gas subsidies is very challenging. Subsidies rarely involve cash payments. Instead scores of U.S. government agencies and departments create hundreds of programmes to support the U.S. energy sector. And there is no requirement for the federal government to keep track of all this."

"Energy subsidies are often simply hidden from public scrutiny. It's only recently been revealed that 40 companies granted leases between 1996 and 2000 for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico do not have to pay royalties for the publicly-owned resource. This is worth nearly a billion dollars a year in lost revenue to the federal government, according to a 2008 study by Friends of the Earth (FOE), a U.S. environmental NGO, and may ultimately total 50 billion dollars."

"These production subsidies do nothing to lower the price of petrol at the pump for U.S. consumers. It simply boosts companies' bottom line, Pica said."

"This massive government intervention distorts energy markets, making it very difficult for alternative energy sources to compete without similarly massive subsidies. "And it promotes America's addiction to oil," Larsen added."

and from Encyclopedia of Earth
eoearth.org/articl...

"The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a
federal government entity designed to supplement
regular oil supplies in the event of disruptions due to
military conflict or natural disaster, costs taxpayers an
additional $5.7 billion per year."

And the externalized costs of fossil fuels are also huge.

"When you consider that researchers have
conclusively linked auto pollution to increased health
problems and mortality, the CTA report?s estimate of
$29.3 to $542.4 billion for the annual uncompensated
health costs associated with auto emissions may not
adequately reflect the value of lost or diminished human life. "

"Other costs associated with localized air pollution
attributable to gasoline-powered automobiles include
decreased agricultural yields ($2.1 to $4.2 billion),
reduced visibility ($6.1 to $44.5 billion), and damage
to buildings and materials ($1.2 to $9.6 billion). Global
warming ($3 to $27.5 billion), water pollution ($8.4 to
$36.8 billion), noise pollution ($6 to $12 billion)"

"According to estimates by
the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), federal
corporate income tax credits and deductions result in
an effective income tax rate of 11 percent for the oil
industry as compared to a non-oil industry average of
18 percent"

"The average effective tax rate on integrated
oil operations has fallen from 21.5 percent in
the early 1980s to only 8.7 percent in the 1990s (both
figures are significantly below the statutory rate of 35%."

"The U.S. government provided net subsidies of between $5.2 and $11.9 billion to the oil sector during 1995, excluding the cost of defending Persian Gulf oil supplies. We estimate defense of oil supplies to be worth an additional $10.5 to $23.3 billion, demonstrating the magnitude of this specific subsidy element. Thus, our estimate for net federal subsidies to oil, including defense, is $15.7 to $35.2 billion for 1995. Because of the sensitivity of our totals to the defense subsidy, we present our results both with and without this item."

Two wars in two decades with huge costs in lives and money

And of course oil accounts for at least $300 billon of our trade deficit.

Nuclear energy has been subsidized for 50 years and a total of $500 billion.

So much for subsidies being an argument against renewable energy. There couldn't be a worse argument.

Please excuse me pasting this from another comment of mine, but the same baseless arguments keep popping up.]]> Tue, 12 May 2009 14:33:59 -0400
Now look who's spreading disinformation. The subsidies for renwable energy pale in comparison with subsidies for oil gas and coal.

heatisonline.org/c...

"subsidy programmes from 1918 are still in place"
"I'm not aware of any oil and gas subsidy that has ever been phased out," said Koplow, the leading expert on U.S. energy subsidies"

"in a time of skyrocketing oil prices and profits, why did the George W. Bush administration in 2005 authorise an additional 32.9 billion dollars in new subsidies over a five-year period?"

"Koplow's 2007 report to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development puts the annual U.S. subsidy at an average of 39 billion dollars a year, when the costs of guarding oil lanes in the Persian/Arab Gulf, and the Alaska Pipeline are included. This does not include any costs from the Iraq war"

"Estimating U.S. oil and gas subsidies is very challenging. Subsidies rarely involve cash payments. Instead scores of U.S. government agencies and departments create hundreds of programmes to support the U.S. energy sector. And there is no requirement for the federal government to keep track of all this."

"Energy subsidies are often simply hidden from public scrutiny. It's only recently been revealed that 40 companies granted leases between 1996 and 2000 for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico do not have to pay royalties for the publicly-owned resource. This is worth nearly a billion dollars a year in lost revenue to the federal government, according to a 2008 study by Friends of the Earth (FOE), a U.S. environmental NGO, and may ultimately total 50 billion dollars."

"These production subsidies do nothing to lower the price of petrol at the pump for U.S. consumers. It simply boosts companies' bottom line, Pica said."

"This massive government intervention distorts energy markets, making it very difficult for alternative energy sources to compete without similarly massive subsidies. "And it promotes America's addiction to oil," Larsen added."

and from Encyclopedia of Earth
eoearth.org/articl...

"The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a
federal government entity designed to supplement
regular oil supplies in the event of disruptions due to
military conflict or natural disaster, costs taxpayers an
additional $5.7 billion per year."

And the externalized costs of fossil fuels are also huge.

"When you consider that researchers have
conclusively linked auto pollution to increased health
problems and mortality, the CTA report?s estimate of
$29.3 to $542.4 billion for the annual uncompensated
health costs associated with auto emissions may not
adequately reflect the value of lost or diminished human life. "

"Other costs associated with localized air pollution
attributable to gasoline-powered automobiles include
decreased agricultural yields ($2.1 to $4.2 billion),
reduced visibility ($6.1 to $44.5 billion), and damage
to buildings and materials ($1.2 to $9.6 billion). Global
warming ($3 to $27.5 billion), water pollution ($8.4 to
$36.8 billion), noise pollution ($6 to $12 billion)"

"According to estimates by
the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), federal
corporate income tax credits and deductions result in
an effective income tax rate of 11 percent for the oil
industry as compared to a non-oil industry average of
18 percent"

"The average effective tax rate on integrated
oil operations has fallen from 21.5 percent in
the early 1980s to only 8.7 percent in the 1990s (both
figures are significantly below the statutory rate of 35%."

"The U.S. government provided net subsidies of between $5.2 and $11.9 billion to the oil sector during 1995, excluding the cost of defending Persian Gulf oil supplies. We estimate defense of oil supplies to be worth an additional $10.5 to $23.3 billion, demonstrating the magnitude of this specific subsidy element. Thus, our estimate for net federal subsidies to oil, including defense, is $15.7 to $35.2 billion for 1995. Because of the sensitivity of our totals to the defense subsidy, we present our results both with and without this item."

Two wars in two decades with huge costs in lives and money

And of course oil accounts for at least $300 billon of our trade deficit.

Nuclear energy has been subsidized for 50 years and a total of $500 billion.

So much for subsidies being an argument against renewable energy. There couldn't be a worse argument.

Please excuse me pasting this from another comment of mine, but the same baseless arguments keep popping up.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/137089-smart-doe-battery-manufacturing-grants-and-dilution-for-dummies?source=feed#comment-500655 500655




]]> Tue, 12 May 2009 12:48:20 -0400




]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/136659-first-solar-what-this-analyst-missed?source=feed#comment-498505 498505 First Solar will probably do well, but will also have competition soon from companies like CIGS thin film makers like Nanosolar and Heliovolt.

"It is also on a faster cost reduction curve, because it is less mature - there are more low hanging fruit"

Not in cost of materials.

Polysilicon manufacturing is itself an evolving industry, so wafer production costs could benefit from better manufacturing technology, futher reducing Si solar cell costs.

A little off topic, but there is an excellent article on costs and economics of wind energy and why feed in tariffs make sense. How wind integrates into the grid.
In Europe, though wind energy has high up front costs to build, but very little cost later, it lowers consumer's electric bills because of it's predictable power prices.
I couldn't explain it well enough to do justice to the article, so I recommend reading it.
www.eurotrib.com/story...

Anyway, if you do read it, does anyone think solar is a similar situation? By solar, I mean any solar, PV, CPV CSP, distributed or utility scale.


]]> Mon, 11 May 2009 02:27:32 -0400 First Solar will probably do well, but will also have competition soon from companies like CIGS thin film makers like Nanosolar and Heliovolt.

"It is also on a faster cost reduction curve, because it is less mature - there are more low hanging fruit"

Not in cost of materials.

Polysilicon manufacturing is itself an evolving industry, so wafer production costs could benefit from better manufacturing technology, futher reducing Si solar cell costs.

A little off topic, but there is an excellent article on costs and economics of wind energy and why feed in tariffs make sense. How wind integrates into the grid.
In Europe, though wind energy has high up front costs to build, but very little cost later, it lowers consumer's electric bills because of it's predictable power prices.
I couldn't explain it well enough to do justice to the article, so I recommend reading it.
www.eurotrib.com/story...

Anyway, if you do read it, does anyone think solar is a similar situation? By solar, I mean any solar, PV, CPV CSP, distributed or utility scale.


]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/136659-first-solar-what-this-analyst-missed?source=feed#comment-497855 497855
Natural gas isn't just used for electric production, but for heating and cooking and industrial uses. Their numbers are just for electricity production from gas.

While oil isn't used much for electric production, if we are considering replacing the ICE vehicles we have now with electrics and PHEVs, then it is also fair to consider the subsidies for oil, which are huge.

www.heatisonline.org/c...

"subsidy programmes from 1918 are still in place"
"I'm not aware of any oil and gas subsidy that has ever been phased out," said Koplow, the leading expert on U.S. energy subsidies"

"in a time of skyrocketing oil prices and profits, why did the George W. Bush administration in 2005 authorise an additional 32.9 billion dollars in new subsidies over a five-year period?"

"Koplow's 2007 report to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development puts the annual U.S. subsidy at an average of 39 billion dollars a year, when the costs of guarding oil lanes in the Persian/Arab Gulf, and the Alaska Pipeline are included. This does not include any costs from the Iraq war"

"Estimating U.S. oil and gas subsidies is very challenging. Subsidies rarely involve cash payments. Instead scores of U.S. government agencies and departments create hundreds of programmes to support the U.S. energy sector. And there is no requirement for the federal government to keep track of all this."

"Energy subsidies are often simply hidden from public scrutiny. It's only recently been revealed that 40 companies granted leases between 1996 and 2000 for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico do not have to pay royalties for the publicly-owned resource. This is worth nearly a billion dollars a year in lost revenue to the federal government, according to a 2008 study by Friends of the Earth (FOE), a U.S. environmental NGO, and may ultimately total 50 billion dollars."

"These production subsidies do nothing to lower the price of petrol at the pump for U.S. consumers. It simply boosts companies' bottom line, Pica said."

"This massive government intervention distorts energy markets, making it very difficult for alternative energy sources to compete without similarly massive subsidies. "And it promotes America's addiction to oil," Larsen added."

and from Encyclopedia of Earth
www.eoearth.org/articl...

"The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a
federal government entity designed to supplement
regular oil supplies in the event of disruptions due to
military conflict or natural disaster, costs taxpayers an
additional $5.7 billion per year."

And the externalized costs of fossil fuels are also huge.

"When you consider that researchers have
conclusively linked auto pollution to increased health
problems and mortality, the CTA report?s estimate of
$29.3 to $542.4 billion for the annual uncompensated
health costs associated with auto emissions may not
adequately reflect the value of lost or diminished human life. "

"Other costs associated with localized air pollution
attributable to gasoline-powered automobiles include
decreased agricultural yields ($2.1 to $4.2 billion),
reduced visibility ($6.1 to $44.5 billion), and damage
to buildings and materials ($1.2 to $9.6 billion). Global
warming ($3 to $27.5 billion), water pollution ($8.4 to
$36.8 billion), noise pollution ($6 to $12 billion)"

"According to estimates by
the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), federal
corporate income tax credits and deductions result in
an effective income tax rate of 11 percent for the oil
industry as compared to a non-oil industry average of
18 percent"

"The average effective tax rate on integrated
oil operations has fallen from 21.5 percent in
the early 1980s to only 8.7 percent in the 1990s (both
figures are significantly below the statutory rate of 35%."

"The U.S. government provided net subsidies of between $5.2 and $11.9 billion to the oil sector during 1995, excluding the cost of defending Persian Gulf oil supplies. We estimate defense of oil supplies to be worth an additional $10.5 to $23.3 billion, demonstrating the magnitude of this specific subsidy element. Thus, our estimate for net federal subsidies to oil, including defense, is $15.7 to $35.2 billion for 1995. Because of the sensitivity of our totals to the defense subsidy, we present our results both with and without this item."

Two wars in two decades with huge costs in lives and money

And of course oil accounts for at least $300 billon of our trade deficit.

Nuclear energy has been subsidized for 50 years and a total of $500 billion.

So much for subsidies being an argument against renewable energy. There couldn't be a worse argument.

]]> Sun, 10 May 2009 13:39:19 -0400
Natural gas isn't just used for electric production, but for heating and cooking and industrial uses. Their numbers are just for electricity production from gas.

While oil isn't used much for electric production, if we are considering replacing the ICE vehicles we have now with electrics and PHEVs, then it is also fair to consider the subsidies for oil, which are huge.

www.heatisonline.org/c...

"subsidy programmes from 1918 are still in place"
"I'm not aware of any oil and gas subsidy that has ever been phased out," said Koplow, the leading expert on U.S. energy subsidies"

"in a time of skyrocketing oil prices and profits, why did the George W. Bush administration in 2005 authorise an additional 32.9 billion dollars in new subsidies over a five-year period?"

"Koplow's 2007 report to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development puts the annual U.S. subsidy at an average of 39 billion dollars a year, when the costs of guarding oil lanes in the Persian/Arab Gulf, and the Alaska Pipeline are included. This does not include any costs from the Iraq war"

"Estimating U.S. oil and gas subsidies is very challenging. Subsidies rarely involve cash payments. Instead scores of U.S. government agencies and departments create hundreds of programmes to support the U.S. energy sector. And there is no requirement for the federal government to keep track of all this."

"Energy subsidies are often simply hidden from public scrutiny. It's only recently been revealed that 40 companies granted leases between 1996 and 2000 for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico do not have to pay royalties for the publicly-owned resource. This is worth nearly a billion dollars a year in lost revenue to the federal government, according to a 2008 study by Friends of the Earth (FOE), a U.S. environmental NGO, and may ultimately total 50 billion dollars."

"These production subsidies do nothing to lower the price of petrol at the pump for U.S. consumers. It simply boosts companies' bottom line, Pica said."

"This massive government intervention distorts energy markets, making it very difficult for alternative energy sources to compete without similarly massive subsidies. "And it promotes America's addiction to oil," Larsen added."

and from Encyclopedia of Earth
www.eoearth.org/articl...

"The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a
federal government entity designed to supplement
regular oil supplies in the event of disruptions due to
military conflict or natural disaster, costs taxpayers an
additional $5.7 billion per year."

And the externalized costs of fossil fuels are also huge.

"When you consider that researchers have
conclusively linked auto pollution to increased health
problems and mortality, the CTA report?s estimate of
$29.3 to $542.4 billion for the annual uncompensated
health costs associated with auto emissions may not
adequately reflect the value of lost or diminished human life. "

"Other costs associated with localized air pollution
attributable to gasoline-powered automobiles include
decreased agricultural yields ($2.1 to $4.2 billion),
reduced visibility ($6.1 to $44.5 billion), and damage
to buildings and materials ($1.2 to $9.6 billion). Global
warming ($3 to $27.5 billion), water pollution ($8.4 to
$36.8 billion), noise pollution ($6 to $12 billion)"

"According to estimates by
the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), federal
corporate income tax credits and deductions result in
an effective income tax rate of 11 percent for the oil
industry as compared to a non-oil industry average of
18 percent"

"The average effective tax rate on integrated
oil operations has fallen from 21.5 percent in
the early 1980s to only 8.7 percent in the 1990s (both
figures are significantly below the statutory rate of 35%."

"The U.S. government provided net subsidies of between $5.2 and $11.9 billion to the oil sector during 1995, excluding the cost of defending Persian Gulf oil supplies. We estimate defense of oil supplies to be worth an additional $10.5 to $23.3 billion, demonstrating the magnitude of this specific subsidy element. Thus, our estimate for net federal subsidies to oil, including defense, is $15.7 to $35.2 billion for 1995. Because of the sensitivity of our totals to the defense subsidy, we present our results both with and without this item."

Two wars in two decades with huge costs in lives and money

And of course oil accounts for at least $300 billon of our trade deficit.

Nuclear energy has been subsidized for 50 years and a total of $500 billion.

So much for subsidies being an argument against renewable energy. There couldn't be a worse argument.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/136502-cramer-s-lightning-round-first-solar-s-day-in-the-sun-5-8-09?source=feed#comment-497779 497779




]]> Sun, 10 May 2009 12:43:56 -0400




]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/136772-how-the-sec-can-level-the-playing-field?source=feed#comment-497727 497727
After hours trading is particularly onerous when companies report earnings after the bell, then the big players make their moves while the rest of us watch from the sidelines. Waking up the next day to find that your stock has had a huge move during off hours is disheartening.








]]> Sun, 10 May 2009 12:07:06 -0400
After hours trading is particularly onerous when companies report earnings after the bell, then the big players make their moves while the rest of us watch from the sidelines. Waking up the next day to find that your stock has had a huge move during off hours is disheartening.








]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/136372-porter-stansberry-sea-change-in-u-s-natural-gas-industry?source=feed#comment-496800 496800 Sat, 09 May 2009 12:54:11 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/136372-porter-stansberry-sea-change-in-u-s-natural-gas-industry?source=feed#comment-496797 496797 billp37
"There is no economy of size in either technology."

That is exactly opposite from what the NREL says about solar thermal (CSP).

""Trough and tower plants, with their large central turbine generators and balance of plant equipment, can take advantage of economies of scale for cost reduction, as cost per kW goes down with increased size."

That's because once the large central turbine generators and balance of plant equipment, like heat storage, is installed, the cost of adding more solar collectors is a dimininishing cost per generating capacity.

The heat that goes into a solar thermal plant is FREE. It comes from the sun. And storing that heat for later use, is far cheaper than storing electricity. At least 20 times cheaper! And the resulting power from CSP with heat storage is dispatchable power day and night. This is highly valued power.

And it's rediculous to assume that economies of scale of manufacturing won't help both solar and wind in general.


john gordon
"sooner or later we will have to reconsider reprocessing, taking into account experience in other countries (japan, scotland, france)."

France is not a convincing argument for nuclear energy.

"France's decision to reprocess reactor fuel has contaminated the seas as far as the Artic Circle and may have led to leukemia clusters near the reprocessing plant. Its decision to try breeder reactors was an expensive failure. Its plutonium fuel program has not reduced its surplus stockpile of plutonium which is calculated at greater than 80 metric tons sitting in tens of thousands of vulnerable containers and with no disposal option. France has no radioactive waste repository."

"In the summer of 2008, France experienced a cascade of accidents at its nuclear facilities. While leaks and spills, including uranium that contaminated groundwater, caused a ban on drinking and bathing and local vintners to change the labels on their bottles, Areva downplayed the gravity of the releases. But the black summer of radioactive leaks and spills shed doubt on the nuclear industry's - and in particular Areva's - ability to uphold fundamental safety standards according to an article in the International Herald Tribune."

"A new video - Everything you always wanted to know about nuclear power...but were afraid to ask - found on the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility Web site, debunks various nuclear myths including the notion that France 'recycles' its radioactive waste. "
view here:
www.everythingnuclear....

The cost of dismantling an aged nuclear reactor could be as high as $500 million.

]]> Sat, 09 May 2009 12:50:21 -0400 billp37
"There is no economy of size in either technology."

That is exactly opposite from what the NREL says about solar thermal (CSP).

""Trough and tower plants, with their large central turbine generators and balance of plant equipment, can take advantage of economies of scale for cost reduction, as cost per kW goes down with increased size."

That's because once the large central turbine generators and balance of plant equipment, like heat storage, is installed, the cost of adding more solar collectors is a dimininishing cost per generating capacity.

The heat that goes into a solar thermal plant is FREE. It comes from the sun. And storing that heat for later use, is far cheaper than storing electricity. At least 20 times cheaper! And the resulting power from CSP with heat storage is dispatchable power day and night. This is highly valued power.

And it's rediculous to assume that economies of scale of manufacturing won't help both solar and wind in general.


john gordon
"sooner or later we will have to reconsider reprocessing, taking into account experience in other countries (japan, scotland, france)."

France is not a convincing argument for nuclear energy.

"France's decision to reprocess reactor fuel has contaminated the seas as far as the Artic Circle and may have led to leukemia clusters near the reprocessing plant. Its decision to try breeder reactors was an expensive failure. Its plutonium fuel program has not reduced its surplus stockpile of plutonium which is calculated at greater than 80 metric tons sitting in tens of thousands of vulnerable containers and with no disposal option. France has no radioactive waste repository."

"In the summer of 2008, France experienced a cascade of accidents at its nuclear facilities. While leaks and spills, including uranium that contaminated groundwater, caused a ban on drinking and bathing and local vintners to change the labels on their bottles, Areva downplayed the gravity of the releases. But the black summer of radioactive leaks and spills shed doubt on the nuclear industry's - and in particular Areva's - ability to uphold fundamental safety standards according to an article in the International Herald Tribune."

"A new video - Everything you always wanted to know about nuclear power...but were afraid to ask - found on the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility Web site, debunks various nuclear myths including the notion that France 'recycles' its radioactive waste. "
view here:
www.everythingnuclear....

The cost of dismantling an aged nuclear reactor could be as high as $500 million.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/136372-porter-stansberry-sea-change-in-u-s-natural-gas-industry?source=feed#comment-495739 495739
The internet was subsidized with about $400 billion over the past 35 years or so.
The railroads were built with about 50% coming from subsidies.



]]> Fri, 08 May 2009 12:51:59 -0400
The internet was subsidized with about $400 billion over the past 35 years or so.
The railroads were built with about 50% coming from subsidies.



]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/136080-a-power-energy-generation-chinese-company-with-huge-growth-begins-to-move?source=feed#comment-494908 494908
adt
Maybe what you call looking in the rearview mirror is looking a little further ahead than just the next quarter. Sure you can trade renewable energy stocks, but the long term picture is why I picked up a small piece of APWR recently. We're probably about due for more profit taking like we saw today, so I'll try to pick up more on a pullback.






]]> Thu, 07 May 2009 23:17:47 -0400
adt
Maybe what you call looking in the rearview mirror is looking a little further ahead than just the next quarter. Sure you can trade renewable energy stocks, but the long term picture is why I picked up a small piece of APWR recently. We're probably about due for more profit taking like we saw today, so I'll try to pick up more on a pullback.






]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/134842-alternative-energy-storage-cheap-outperforms-cool?source=feed#comment-493318 493318 The hype or hope article about PHEVS that you cited, also included the following.

"EV advocates are quick to note the Prius wasn't designed to be a plug-in hybrid, and in fact makes a lousy one. The biggest problem is the electric motor is too small, so the car relies more heavily on the gasoline engine. Cars designed from the ground up to be plug-in hybrids, like the plug-in Prius that Toyota is working on or the Saturn Vue plug-in – will almost certainly offer far better fuel efficiency."

On reading the article, I was a little confused about how they were measuring the mpg of the converted Priuses in the study. The claims often heard for PHEVs don't say you will get 100 mpg on a trip. They say that with enough electric only range for people to commute back and forth to work, they will end up doing 60% of their driving on battery power, with a resulting overall annual mpg of 100.
And one has to consider that the 30 miles, or whatever is the electric only range, is fueled by about $1 worth of electricity.

I also noted the anecdotal story in the last paragraph about the man who got 75mpg with his Hymotion conversion kit. And this on what is not the ideal test car, assuming the quoted paragraph above is correct.

Who was driving the cars? Was it typical commuting and less often longer distance trips? No. Since these were city fleet vehicles, they wouldn't be very good examples of the averege driver's experience.
That makes it a flawed study to my mind.






]]> Thu, 07 May 2009 04:06:57 -0400 The hype or hope article about PHEVS that you cited, also included the following.

"EV advocates are quick to note the Prius wasn't designed to be a plug-in hybrid, and in fact makes a lousy one. The biggest problem is the electric motor is too small, so the car relies more heavily on the gasoline engine. Cars designed from the ground up to be plug-in hybrids, like the plug-in Prius that Toyota is working on or the Saturn Vue plug-in – will almost certainly offer far better fuel efficiency."

On reading the article, I was a little confused about how they were measuring the mpg of the converted Priuses in the study. The claims often heard for PHEVs don't say you will get 100 mpg on a trip. They say that with enough electric only range for people to commute back and forth to work, they will end up doing 60% of their driving on battery power, with a resulting overall annual mpg of 100.
And one has to consider that the 30 miles, or whatever is the electric only range, is fueled by about $1 worth of electricity.

I also noted the anecdotal story in the last paragraph about the man who got 75mpg with his Hymotion conversion kit. And this on what is not the ideal test car, assuming the quoted paragraph above is correct.

Who was driving the cars? Was it typical commuting and less often longer distance trips? No. Since these were city fleet vehicles, they wouldn't be very good examples of the averege driver's experience.
That makes it a flawed study to my mind.






]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/134519-al-gore-sells-only-u-s-listed-solar-holding?source=feed#comment-486857 486857
www.realclimate.org/in.../


]]> Sat, 02 May 2009 18:05:42 -0400
www.realclimate.org/in.../


]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/134487-solar-industry-s-long-term-outlook?source=feed#comment-486848 486848 It will be interesting to see what will develop with CPV. We don't hear much about it, and as you know I often write about CSP which I think has huge potential. But CPV could end up being bigger than most imagine. One thing it has over CSP is the ability to be used in both centralized and distributed on site systems.



]]> Sat, 02 May 2009 17:56:34 -0400 It will be interesting to see what will develop with CPV. We don't hear much about it, and as you know I often write about CSP which I think has huge potential. But CPV could end up being bigger than most imagine. One thing it has over CSP is the ability to be used in both centralized and distributed on site systems.



]]>