Energy Diversification

Total Rating:
0 / 0

19 Comments

    • Fri Mar 14th 21:00 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Water Infrastructure Attracts Big Spending But Filtration has the Momentum
      You highlight all the right issues that will need to be addressed, or will address us over the coming years if we do not improve our water infrastructure.

      However, several issues leap out:

      1. We have been hearing about the need for water infrastructure spending in this country for years. Every disaster (blackouts, bridge collapse, etc) is positioned as the catalyst for infrastructure spending. Is it fair to say this will be a 10 - 20 year spending ramp, rather than a near term (1-3 year) event?

      2. Given that most water systems are government run and financed (through user fees and bond issuance), a recession could reduce tax revenue and push back these improvements? (Note -- As you point out, this could benefit high-tech band aid solutions like INSU.)

      3. With respect to China, this needs to be flushed out, so to speak. The Olympics are almost here, so we can't use Beijing as an argument for why the Chinese need to accelerate spending. China just reshuffled its infrastructure leadership. Do you have any specific insight on how exactly China's water upgrades may play out? (What about companies like Epure and Doosan, with a big presence in Asia?)

      4. Your water surveys are very interesting to consider. Of course, given the years of infrastructure expectations that have not materialized, have you back-tested these surveys over the years to see if the respondents are good predictors? Or do they suffer from center-of-the-universe syndrome as many bureaucrats do?

      Final comment: It will be useful to see how solar energy spending by governments plays out over the next year or two. Will government spending cutbacks reduce the enthusiasm for these subsidies? Or will the focus on infrastructure and energy needs keep them subsidizing solar power? I am not arguing for solar power; rather pointing to it as an indicator of how tough economic times could lead to *reduced* infrastructure spending.
      View article »
    • Wed Feb 20th 12:31 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      5 Must Read Articles in Oil and Alternative Energy
      The range of ideas and views about energy sources on this board reflects the diversified and/or scattershot approach to energy in this country. That may be good or bad. However, as long as there is such a divergence of views, we need to hold off on the calls to just "do something!"

      The reality - as reflected above - is that a lot of alternatives are being pursued. Very smart people cannot all agree on the answer, so rather than having the government just "do something" and push one solution, perhaps we ought to accept that this is a long process.

      The reality is that nuclear power works, and works on a large scale. If we had to just "do something" right now, nuclear power would be the safest bet. There are risks and problems with it, which justify a more diversified approach. But with that in mind, I think you have to step back and respect that this is not an immediate process.

      If anyone thinks we're just going to stick a new President in there, slap some solar panels on our roofs, and stop using oil -- good luck.

      The problem is not lack of imagination. Its too much imagination without real consideration of what can actually work. I've heard solar fairy tales for 30 years. "We'll be all solar by 1990." I'm not anti-solar now, but you sure have to keep things in perspective. There are always Pollyannas with big promises -- who stand to make a lot of money by selling out.

      Why is it that all of these great, cheap, large scale solutions always demand government subsidies? There are so many cellulosic ethanol players out there now promising that $1 production costs are *already* achievable with their technology. Then why do we need subsidies? Actions speak louder than words.

      We are still in the R&D phase -- let's accept that and acknowledge that these are venture-stage investments in most cases.
      View article »
    • Tue Feb 19th 12:32 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Uranium on the Rise
      Although I believe in the long term promise of nuclear power - especially in China - it continues to amaze me that the only so-called "analysis" that anyone wants to do for uranium producers and explorers consists of drawing lines and talking about "uptrends".

      On the one hand, we have very valid arguments that China will need (and in my view, already has much more massive plans than we have been informed of) to build nuclear plants. However, even in regulatory-lite China, these plants will not be online for at least a decade. And even if China were to double the build-rate of nuclear reactors that the world achieved during the building boom in the 70s-80s, its going to be a long, long time before this drives uranium demand.

      Now of course investors are right to try to position themselves for this future demand increase. But the reality is (the analysis that is always skipped) is that there is a lot of production coming on line, from the very companies mentioned here - Uranium One, Denison, etc.

      Over the next few years, we are looking at an OVER supply issue, not a shortage. Even with Uranium One's sulfuric acid problems in Kazakhstan, they still expect massive production ramp ups.

      There is a contradiction when we talk about the growth prospects for all the companies - based on their production expectations - but then we don't address the broad supply/demand situation for uranium. If these guys meet their targets, we will have an oversupply for years. This is a long time to ride out from an investment perspective.

      Moreover, no one is analyzing the true production cost of uranium. And you're going to need to, because even if you don't believe this is a problem, the anti-nuclear side is coming out with a host of well-reasoned arguments that large-scale mining of somewhat lower-grade uranium is going to cost a lot more -- and may even have a negative EROIE! This message will impact the market because the popular press will repeat it, reinforcing its own anti-nuclear bias for a few more years.

      Finally -- if you truly believe the nuclear story, why not play the engineering firms that will be booking business from this buildout -- SGR, MDR, FLR, FWLT and of course CEI.PA (AREVA)?

      Perhaps this is because the majority of uranium stock traders are basically inept analysts feverishly drawing "trend lines" to try to justify their way out of the hole they are in for chasing uranium equities to unreasonable heights last Spring?
      View article »
    • Fri Dec 7th 10:04 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Notes from the 35th UBS Media Conference: Misleading Investors Back to the 70’s
      The article is an unapologetic advertisement for the author's company.

      After wasting 5 minutes of my life reading this, and wading through paragraph after paragraph of comma, separated, lists, of, everything, its not quite clear what he's saying -- and its certainly not clear that I should dump my holdings in any of the media stocks he mentions.

      This article has little to do with investing, and its a poor reflection on both SA, and more importantly, Yahoo. Why does Yahoo waste its platform giving high profile news placements to advertisements like this.

      I feel like someone just told me to drink more Ovaltine.
      View article »
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»