smokey

Total Rating:
0 / 0

5 Comments

    • Mon Feb 18th 12:19 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      The Current State of the Solar Energy Sector
      Good article, and Jack Yetiv's comment -- both well done.

      One thought that always come back to my mind, but which doesn't particularly seem relevant in an immediate way to the stock market (but is, ultimately), is the very nature of what we dub "alternative energy." That is, the philosophy behind it, and why it has become so popular.

      Well, as the saying goes, "first things first." One must remember that the threat of an "energy shortage," or an actual energy shortage, is artificial.

      Case in point: refrigeration. Refrigerators, if you look back at their entire history, have never been particularly well designed, not because of some esoteric laws that the designers ignored, or because of some cost cutting measure that put them in hands of the proletariat who wouldn't otherwise have been able to get their hands on them. No, they have almost always been made with relatively little insulation and almost always with the compressor mounted either on the bottom (where it's heat would warm the cooling compartments), or on the back (where its heat still warms the cooling compartments, just not quite as much).

      So, the simple, obvious answer? Put more insulation (thicker walls) on the fridge, and move the compressor to the top of the unit, as Sunfrost manufacturing first did in the mid-eighties, when they began manufacturing the world's most efficient refrigerator.

      The only problem is that being a small company (a cottage, practically, and remaining one), the economies of scale have always made them prohibitively expensive to all but the most devout. (Example: my 16 cubic foot Sunfrost cost $2800.00 about four years ago, far above what is probably was an industry average of around $800.00 for a similarly sized fridge).

      I repeat -- there is nothing inherently expensive (or subtle) about moving the compressor to the top of the unit, or making the unit with thick, more-insulating walls. But there is something very expensive about having a small "factory," and being unable to get enough of the population interested enough in saving energy to buy sufficient quantities of one's marvelous product to expand to a larger factory and thus reduce costs. The more business one has, and the more consistent it is, the more inevitable will be one's growth, and the better able one is to reduce one's prices.

      This isn't a factor of ignorance, either, necessarily. When Mother Earth News had their explosion of creativity back in the very late seventies and the beginning of the eighties, they got a lot of press, including even the nightly news. They built a hybrid car that got over 100 mpg, a truck that ran on smoke from a wood fire, and many other incredible low-tech demonstrations of just what true Yankee ingenuity can -- and did -- accomplish. But did it have any real impact on the "average" fellow, whether rich or poor or middle class? No.

      And why not? Because ironically, when something wonderful gets a lot of publicity, it has the effect of buttressing people's faith so much in the "rightness of things," that instead of inspiring similar feats of ingenuity, or political change for the better, or investment in
      like-minded innovation, it instead tends to make people complacent. After being a little frightened by gas-rationing and rising energy costs and political instability in foreign places earlier etc., people began to believe that "everything is being taken -- or will be taken -- care of" -- and that any interest or effort on their part in helping
      produce such change is gratuitous.

      And thus began Ronald Reagan's tenure, followed by Bush Sr., followed by the not-so-stellar Clinton era, and now . . . well, you get the picture.

      So what does this have to do with the alternative energy sector and the stock market? It is this: that as long has the people of earth have this laid-back attitude about changing to alternative sources of energy, and emulating Amory Lovins in adopting far more efficient designs of automobiles, refrigerators, houses, etc., then the true "alternative revolution" will still be short-lived, and far less than what it could and should be.

      Simply airing programs like Invention Nation and the like, or talking about how many more wind-turbines there are than there were 5 years ago isn't even coming close to changing America's habitual "waste is wealth" philosophy.

      It is easy to prove this to yourself. Simply drive to any big city in the USA, and go to the wealthiest section of town, and see how many of the houses have solar-thermal water heaters, or even photo voltaic panels on their roofs or yards. I've done this in the more ritzy sections of the sun-drenched state of Florida, among other places, where there is neither lack of sun nor a paucity of wealth, but one can do it anywhere.

      Okay -- what do you see? Very, very little, if any of the above mentioned technologies are extant, even in states that have net-metering laws and state incentives, like California (where the payback is often only a few years).

      So what does it prove? It proves that even when given plenty of reasons -- economic, environmental, even sociological reasons or imperatives to change -- most folks, no matter how rich, are almost completely hardened to changing for the better.

      I'm not being cynical, just factual. I'm inspired by the relative progress of our European cousins in embracing alternative energy and conservation -- so it isn't really "the human condition" -- or "the fall of man" or whatever that makes Americans so incredibly stupid. It has to be something else -- and it is something that predates Dubya by a great many years.

      Americans claim to care, but in reality they are willing to let things go for a very long time. What could have been a true energy-efficient/alter... energy renaissance in the late seventies (and jumped far ahead of Europe even), instead imploded into an era of ever more ridiculous "optimism," "psuedo-patriotis... and pseudo-prosperity. As always, except under the "whiplash of necessity," America waits and waits and waits until war, broiling summers and toasty springs and falls, before it starts to take something seriously. And even then, it still doesn't -- not really.
      View article »
    • Sun Feb 10th 18:07 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Straight Talk from Warren Buffett
      You are so right, Pauly B about greed. It is really quite funny really -- Buffet is right too about "dumb money." It may sound cruel -- but it is just natural law at work. Natural law (to me) is that when I was a kid, and I put my finger on a hot stove to see what it felt like, I got burned. It didn't matter that I was a good kid, or that even that I was intelligent -- I still got burned. Hearts may go out to those who get so burned, and mine does for many of those in trouble . . . but it is limited, because it is based on the motivations of those who have been screwed.

      The same can be said for the so-called "energy crisis." I bet those 600 homes that were abandoned were not built intelligently, either. That is, a home can easily be designed to maximize energy savings (and thus $avings) -- and I'm talking about more than simply stuffing more insulation into the walls and attic. As a recent article in the UK's Guardian pointed out, so-called "revival" Tudor homes of recent construction were shown to be far less insulated than those of orignal vintage (this from a university study). Likewise, homes that integrate solar panels in grid-tie setups have been moving much faster in the marketplace in California and other areas than similarly priced homes without solar setups. But are developers and governments listening, yet? For the most part, they're still dragging their feet as always.
      View article »
    • Tue Jan 29th 14:08 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Solar Stocks Won't Stay Down for Long
      I think Nick Hodge has solar energy appraised about right. While some are still skeptical about its growth here in the USA, the fact remains that much of Europe has been -- and continues to be -- very aggressive in adopting solar technologies, as well as wind and other "alternative"... methods of energy production. Coupled with an aggresive efficiency ethos, Europe will undoubtedly continue to lead the US for awhile.

      While Asia, particularly China, is aggresive in producing solar and wind products, their actual rapacious consumption is unfortunately eating up the burgeoning gain from their production (in regard to the environmental benefits). However, that might change in the next year or two. Not many are left that remain blind to the obvious fact that not only are we all in trouble in regard to the environmental concerns, but in addition the world is desparately in need of new, cleaner energy sources.

      I only wish we had more enlightened voters and representatives. There is the true key to success -- or failure. But you can only get intelligent government when you have intelligent people -- people who are not only superficially smart, but who understand and are in tune with nature herself.
      View article »
    • Tue Jan 15th 13:33 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Why LDK Beats First Solar
      Hello to all.

      There is some good give-and-take here, and I enjoy the exchange, even if sometimes it seems to get into the so-called "callous" zone at times.

      But for myself, "zooming out" and looking at the whole solar (and alternative in general) picture, I think the main problem in this country is the huge disproportionate subsidy to the oil/coal/nuclear industry. Europe is way ahead of us, and the gap is widening.

      If subsidies for the oil/coal/nuke industries were eliminated, as many democrats want (and Ron Paul, who doesn't believe in subsidies for anyone), the field of alternative energy would not only expand, but more importantly, stabilize as well. Stability is more important in the long term than quick growth and glory stocks. Dividends become important rather than quick profit.

      (To get a picture of the disproportionate nature of our current subsidy policy, out of 200 billion dollars last year in subsidies that went to the entire "energy sector," less than one half of one percent of that went for wind power in this country. Further, I'd bet a lot that this amount was also probably an all time historical high for wind)

      And that is the whole point of sustainable energy anyway. With true sustainability, you don't have to worry endlessly about whether a particular stock is going to beat another stock, or whether a particular form of alternative energy production (like wind) is going to beat another form (like solar) -- and so on. The ultimate point is to be sustainable -- and that should make the idea of quick and/or huge profits somewhat moot, as well as any one source being the dominant one. In a world of truly cleaner, more stable energy production, there is less worry, less rancor, and even less need for profit (at least in any excessive way). With less military spending for oil etc., there is less national debt, and less worry about money in the long term. Likewise, exploiting wind and solar and waves, the only worry is keeping the mechanical infrastructure from breaking down. With less money into maintenance, you have ultimately cheaper energy, and thus less need for money anyway.

      Being free from the endless "rat race" is the biggest "profit" I can think of, where you don't have to worry about what the next big energy stock is going to be. We need all of the various technologies, including solar thermal.

      For those more into the reason for alternative energy, and not just the financial picture, I would recommend the new Scientific American issue, whose cover story recommends a huge investment in solar power and storing excess energy as compressed air. (For myself, I would be just as bullish on wind and waves et. al, however).
      View article »
    • Tue Jan 15th 12:19 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Jatropha Being Developed as a New Biodiesel Source
      Shaun, you have a good point, though I don't actually feel negative about the article on jatropha, which sounds like a nice, "juicy" plant.

      Insofar as hybrid cars (and trains, for that matter), I think compressed air is probably the most efficient method of storing energy (and I am apparently correct, according to the recent cover story in Scientific American, which proposes compressed air as a means of storing energy from solar).

      Of course, I don't mean to imply that any one method should dominate the energy sector -- that would be the same idiotic mistake that our oil/coal/nuclear based economy was based on originally, and why we're in a polluted, violent, screwed up world. Certainly batteries and ultra-capacitors have already shown their worth, and will continue to do so.
      View article »
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»