EcoEconoMind

10 Comments

    • ON: Sun Jul 6th 18:15 PM
      Commented on:
      Mid-Year Report: Is a Summer Turn-around Still Possible?
      BrunoT - a little slack pls, the 'k' and 'm' keys are so close...but all authors should proof-read or enter in MSWord with spellcheck.

      good article and discussion, btw. I am long AMAT and their SunFab tool...give them a year or two and $1/W will be old news.
      View article »
    • ON: Fri Jun 27th 23:52 PM
      Commented on:
      Another Solar Blow: Spain May Cut Its Incentive Program
      Well, solar stocks are getting hammered. The cost per kW of solar continues to decline whereas oil continues to rise. Maybe Spain sees that intersection where solar achieves parity more clearly than others. Maybe the ITC will not pass in the US, solar subsidies will go away, and the oil lobby will notch another tactical win on their belt. Meanwhile we will hear more whining from folks tired of paying todays price of gas and they will rail against the speculators and continue to claim there is plenty of oil if it were not for those damned environmentalists.

      If I have not offered up enough with the above to take umbrage at something then let me offer this...I truly look forward to $7/gal for gas. My house is almost paid for. I have a nice garden and a solar array connected with enough $ and shogun shells to last a few years...neighbors are welcome - you know me well.
      View article »
    • ON: Fri Jun 27th 23:35 PM
      Commented on:
      Risky Waters, But Opportune Waves
      it is written in an inclusive style that, whilst pleasing to the ear, reads vague in terms of action or commitment. That said, I read into this article that 'we' are to get out of our money markets if we go below March, but do so very slowly. Oh and make sure you do so in ways that hedge further downside.

      In other words, buy to the downside assuming you cashed out early May at S&P1410...how well you do that is up to you.

      I've seen worse advice and have read more vague newsletters.
      View article »
    • ON: Mon Jun 2nd 23:53 PM
      Commented on:
      Cap-and-Trade Vs. Fuel Efficiency Requirements
      Silly argument is right. You will see cap-and-trade and it is the best mechanism out there to achieve CO2 reductions. It is a market mechanism and we only have to look at SOx/acid rain as a successful example. That was a 15 year issue. CO2 is an 80 year issue at least. Energy price arguments or what some call 'pure market forces' won't get the world where it needs to be in terms of CO2 reductions and won't until we fairly price the true cost of burning fossil fuels. That is essentially cap-and-trade which, for carbon, means hundreds of billions of dollars is changing hands every year. Ignore that reality and you will be on the losing side.
      View article »
    • ON: Wed May 28th 02:02 AM
      Commented on:
      First Solar, SunPower: Threatened by Applied Materials Advances?
      from what I've read FSLR cost per watt is somewhere around $1.3 v. a theoretical $1.5 for the SunFab. One thing I have learned in the semiconductor equipment industry is to never bet against AMAT and I am not about to do so with their move into solar.
      View article »
    • ON: Sun May 25th 23:53 PM
      Commented on:
      The Case for Not Drilling ANWR
      Surgcare:

      Where in the posted article, The Case for Not Drilling...is there any mention of Democrat or Republican? I see Adam Smith mentioned but I forget what party he belonged to.

      Or, are you referring to any of those who replied? In other words, who are you referring to as 'you' in your second sentence?

      I certainly agree with your statement, "In any case smart investors are making lots of money on increasing oil prices..."

      Yes, I have...I really have. But not as much these last few days...I'm taking a breather, is all...still long though on oil and solar.

      Do you offer facts or just the same old political tripe of 'those damned Democrats' so that others can say, hey what about 'those stupid Republicans'?

      Try to find a right-wing-rant site. You sound like you need company.
      View article »
    • ON: Sun May 25th 15:39 PM
      Commented on:
      The Case for Not Drilling ANWR
      that applies to me too. I should not have implied any 'whiners' read or respond to this blog.
      View article »
    • ON: Sun May 25th 15:35 PM
      Commented on:
      The Case for Not Drilling ANWR
      sorry, I can't resist this:

      >P.S. Have we been brainwashed by Al Gore and the Greenies?

      perhaps I am reading too much into the question but I doubt it...

      I find it to be the typically lame rhetorical question using name-calling to discredit anyone who is of the opinion that anthropogenic effects are contributing to climate change and therefore we need an energy policy that does not rely on burning up all of the fossil fuel we have as cheaply as possible.

      Al Gore is not the most authoritative word on the subject, just the most visible. The IPCC is the most authoritative given their body of work, credibility of membership among their peers and consensus-based nature of their output and I say that having spent the last two decades reading and studying both the science and counter science to climate change. You start by saying 'brainwashed greenies', I follow by calling you 'intellectually lazy and scientifically ignorant' and where does it go from there?

      Let's confine our discussion to facts without resorting to name calling and charged words.
      View article »
    • ON: Sun May 25th 14:53 PM
      Commented on:
      America's Energy Policy: Coming to Terms with Reality
      I like this one:

      >EVERYONE needs to be involved in the solution.
      >1. OPEC must be broken up by making it illegal.

      How about if we all just go to our city councils and demand that OPEC be made illegal. Let's start in Berkeley or Palo Alto. Or, maybe the US Government can take them to The Hague. What if we argued our case for making OPEC illegal at the UN! Yea, either or all three of those ought to do it!
      View article »
    • ON: Sun May 25th 14:25 PM
      Commented on:
      The Case for Not Drilling ANWR
      agree completely....

      Policy makers need this pressure are so does the market to truly stimulate alternative energy investments. The US needs to adjust to high oil prices as other countries have had to face (two years of rising oil prices? I call that short term). I strongly doubt 'oil independence' will ever truly be achieved, rather, oil will remain 'expensive' as alternatives scale up to meet demand (but not relative to inflation). True visionaries will see the long term economic impact of high energy prices in a carbon constrained world and there will be winners and losers. Will the US economy 'fly apart at the wheels' because we do not drill ANWR? No, maybe for other reasons, but not because of letting ANWR sit where it is. When we price the use of a resource by including ALL costs (over the entire life cycle and include the impacts on our environment), policy and markets will enable better decisions more in line with our survival as a species.

      Whiners should sell their Ford Excursions and Toyota Tundras and Nissan Armadas.
      View article »
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»