jajagabor

Solar Power Will Be Transformational in the Next Decade

This was a great article, Jack. Although it is somewhat on the sanguine side -- that side is an absolutely necessary one!

Regarding some of the more cautious/constructive comments, I liked Andrew Ling's the best. Like Mr. Ling, I have often found myself "ahead of my time" (so to speak) in regard to new technologies.

Four years ago I put together my first solar installation (battery, inverter, charge controller, panels) and have never regretted it. But the interest from others has always been very lukewarm, even after I have upgraded the original system and put in another one, and despite the fact that electrical rates have increased around 20% in just the past couple of years in my state of residence, and are bound to increase even more in the near future.

People always seem to love putting down new, innovative things -- and I think there is a certain obvious envy involved. Hence the usual nit-picking comments and questions. The fact that people spend money -- lots of it -- on such useless, quickly-depreciating stuff rather than on things that actually produce/save energy (and thus save money) shows that most of them are not really interested in any real "payback" in the first place, of any kind, whether for themselves or the environment etc. they live day to day, and although nice, good people, they never understand the idea of "planning ahead."

Example: buying a new car or SUV -- unless it is really needed -- is often a complete waste of time as it results in so many incidental costs: 1) insurance cost usually increases, 2) tag/title costs usually increase 3) and lastly, vehicles often depreciate at least $1500 - $2000 as soon as they leave the dealers' lots (and even more within a mere year). Thus, money is burned for having a shiny vehicle -- for a few months (after which, perhaps it is so shiny). What kind of thinking person would eschew solar for something so wasteful? Well,
the kind of person who doesn't really plan ahead -- i .e . most people!

Yet the critics, even supershort, do have a valid place, for even if their comments are sometimes asinine, for they show how many out there really think.

But seriously, if people did think, they would have been listening more deeply back when the "Owens Magnetic" automobile was produced back in the early part of the 20th century -- what (I think) was the world's first hybrid (gas/electric) car. According to Ed Begley, the Owens Magnetic got 50 mpg!

Likewise, they would also have paid attention when Aldous Huxley, in his novel AFTER MANY A SUMMER DIES THE SWAN (first published 1939), discussed the work of the Smithsonian Director, Charles Abbot Greeley, and his work with solar thermal. In the novel, one of the main characters uses a solar thermal device to heat oil and produce steam, which in turn is used to generate electricity, and thus lives off the grid. But the novel was probably a far way off from the NYT's bestseller list, and today very few people seem to be aware of it, despite the fact the Huxley was himself part of a well known English family, and the fact that his novels (especially BRAVE NEW WORLD) are still read and published today.

I could give many more examples of how "civilization" has "missed the boat" . . . but won't.

Instead -- to the positive:

What was obvious to me when I installed that first solar system (and actually, long before that), and is even more obvious now, is that whatever delays are encountered in the acceptance of solar power and other alternative power sources, the bottom line is that it is inevitably going to go "gangbusters" at some point (as it has to some degree already in much of Europe, though that potential is hardly at its full potential).

In terms of investing, I made quite a bit investing in ESLR back in 2003 (or was it '04? -- I'd have to look it up) when it was trading between 2 and 3. I bought over $20,000 worth, and sold half when it reached 7 within a couple of years, and then sold another 1/4 of what was left when it hit 12. I still retain 1/4 of that original investment and plan to hold it for a long time.

Since that time I've mostly traded very sporadically in solar and wind, usually (and unfortunately) selling short rather than long. Although I have almost always profited, I would have made a LOT more if I'd gone long (most of the time, anyway).

Still, I feel good. Making money rather than losing it is far better than hitting home runs (unless, of course, you really do hit home runs most of the time).

But what I really wish for is when solar stocks become the normal "blue chip" stocks, and investors can make a steady -- albeit modest -- amount of money mostly from dividends, rather than trying to outshine other investors with their special picks. That is fun . . . yes, but isn't really what "sustainable" implies, is it? Sustainable is really connected with words like "relaxed," or "steady, stable" etc. and is not meant to be so volatile. But the reason these companies are more volatile is our culture and "the system," not the nature of renewables itself.

Well, bla bla bla -- I talk a lot. Have a good one!

Solar Stocks: Nine That Will Shine in a Bull Market

firefly (to supershort): ". . .and nuclear has received zillions of dollars in subsidies - something you keep forgetting to address. so much for your cost-efficiency ratios and 'free' market models."

Nor has supershort yet responded to the obvious lack of compatibility between drought and nuclear power plants. And insofar as the "free-market," it is truly mind-numbing how so many of those on the so-called "conservative" or "free-market" side of things are themselves the absolute worst at voting for subsidies (welfare for the rich), sweetheart tax breaks, and these absurd "pie in the sky" ideas for our grand, glorious, clean "future" with . . . nuclear power running everything! :-) It just never ends . . .

frflyer, thank you for adding to the issue of drought vs. nukes, and putting a little more detail into it than I did. And thanks for the inspiring news about molten salt as a storage medium. I seem to remember reading something about that before, but not until now did I realize how quickly the various methods of storing surplus wind/solar power are evolving.

The molten salt method sounds like the winner, but then again, with NGK's salt and sulfur batteries -- and with the possibilities regarding compressed air -- it would be difficult right now to assess which one (if any) will ultimately be the best at storing electricity.

With all human endeavors, it is only ignorance and stupidity that prevent humane and safe methods of producing all the energy we need, and to grow all the food we need etc. etc.

Solar Stocks: Nine That Will Shine in a Bull Market

Supershort, you said, "Although hydrogen energy is an alternative, in order to obtain it, you need to use water. That is a life sustaining resource, unlike coal, oil, uranium."

What is often forgotten by nuclear advocates is that water is needed on a continual basis for nuclear plants, as the AP article cited below states: ". . . the drought could choke off the billions of gallons of water that pass through the region's reactors every day to cool used steam." What with the periodic (yet unpredictable) weather, drought conditions are making it more difficult for nuclear plants to operate in some areas -- and given the increasingly erratic weather, this problem could easily become worse over time. Depending on nuclear to curb greenhouse gases could thus become a tragic mistake!

This Associated Press story makes it clear that nuclear power and drought do not mix well:

biz.yahoo.com/ap/08012...

In addition, nuclear plants, because of their inherent dangerous nature, require enormous time to license and build, often 15-20 years.

Yet, that is still only part of the picture. Nuclear gets, and has always gotten, far more subsidies than wind and solar, even today. The costs of nuclear storage, the reprocessing of spent fuel rods, the liability (insurance) costs, and the decommissioning of nuclear plants are but a few of the many ways in which the taxpayer foots most or all of these costs. Those who cite the "low" cost of nuclear wouldn't be anywhere as cavalier about its alleged economic advantage were these costs calculated into the picture.

Lastly, the "problem" of storage for wind and solar power is not really a problem. Last month, Scientific American's cover story was about the use of empty underground aquifers and abandoned mine shafts that could be used to store compressed air from surplus energy production from wind and solar -- one of the most efficient methods of storing energy there is. In addition, more efficient batteries are already being manufactured by NGK to store wind power. "NGK, a Japanese industrial ceramics manufacturer, just began selling nontoxic sodium-sulfur batteries with 4.3 times the capacity of their highly toxic lead-acid counterparts." says Stephanie Grimmett, at:

seekingalpha.com/artic...

Solar Stocks Continue to Roll

User 134327, you say that temps after 1998 have decreased for 10 years straight (except in the NYT), but I haven't seen or heard that from the likes of Scientific American, or Discovery Magazine, the Science Channel, or anyone else.

I'm not saying you're wrong -- I'm not a scientist -- but whether it is
mainstream scientific magazines like the two I mentioned above, or the mainstream media, the "end" of the global warming theory seems to me to be highly exaggerated.

One fellow at the grocery store I go to even told me that the polar ice caps had recovered most of their ice this year! While I keep an open mind, I've yet to see anyone say this besides this person, whether they're neighbors or scientific folks or the media (of any stripe or persuasion).

Still -- it would be nice if we could honestly say goodbye to a scenario in which our weather becomes less pleasant.

Personally, I have to agree that the two Democratic candidates have not dealt with the issue enough at all -- and the reason is that
the two major political parties have never really cared that much about any problem -- because the voting public don't insist on it. But I would still prefer a Democrat over a Republican. A Nader, a Green, or perhaps a Libertarian would be far preferable. But I don't sense any real movement in my fellow humans that would justify believing that such third party candidates have much of a chance at winning.