Tom Konrad's Comments

10 Clean Energy Stocks for 2010

Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:56:54 -0500

Vu1 Sounds worth watching, but still much too early stage for my taste as an investor. Phrases like "Imagine what improvements they will be able to incorporate in their bulbs once revenue begins coming in." are a red flag for me. The road to market acceptance for a new technology tends to be much longer than companies ever predict (even if the technology is superior in many ways.) I prefer to imagine how much lower the price could go while we're waiting for revenue to come in.

On Dec 29 10:08 PM ginchinchili wrote:

> Vu1's bulbs have a better light quality/color and will cost less.
> Also, as I understand it, LEDs are not yet very suitable for recessed
> lighting due to their size and the need for heat dissipation. I also
> consider that although LEDs are coming down in price and their light
> quality is being improved, it's taken them several years to get to
> where they are now. Vu1 will be competitive right out of the gate.
> Imagine what improvements they will be able to incorporate in their
> bulbs once revenue begins coming in.

10 Clean Energy Stocks for 2010

Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:05:37 -0500

Because it's based in China, and I don't trust the Chinese (they have a culture which is supportive of stealing from foreigners, and I'm a foreigner), and because APWR's mostly a wind company, which is less interesting to me than EE, grid, and efficient transport.

Now stop promoting APWR in your comments on my articles. It's annoying. The world is full of wonderful investment opportunities, and I lack the time to look at them all. Every time you write one of your promotions of APWR where I see it, it moves that much farther down my list of companies I'm interested in.

On Dec 29 11:43 AM wind4me wrote:

> Tom, how U can ''continue'' to miss (APWR) and not see the diversified
> clean energy player like APWR for your readers amazes me.........
> APWR is going to ramp revenues for 2010 , Wharton analysts have revenues
> ramping from 320 million to 580 million conservatively
> www.Wind4me.com
> I have just RAISED my guidance and Estimates for 2010 to 690 Million
> and my 90 million Q1 2010 will measure against horrible Q1 2009 31
> million revenues!

10 Clean Energy Stocks for 2010

Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:58:04 -0500

LED's don't produce UV. why would Vu1 be better?

On Dec 29 12:32 PM ginchinchili wrote:

> I have a correction to make regarding my last comment. In the second
> to the last paragraph I wrote: "They've recently been contacted by
> 2 museums about their lighting because the UVs
> they produce adversely affects artwork..." Let me be perfectly clear,
> Vu1's lighting technology, ESL, does not produce any UV rays. Vu1
> was contacted by these museums because CFL's produce damaging UV
> light and since the museums are mandated to phase out incandescent
> lights, they are looking for alternatives to CFLs and LEDs. Vu1's
> bulbs sound like a perfect match.
>
> Sorry about the mistake.

10 Clean Energy Stocks for 2010

Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:56:54 -0500

Vu1 sounds interesting. I have heard of their technology, but did not realize they were a publicly traded company.

On Dec 29 11:49 AM ginchinchili wrote:

> Thanks for another informative article, Tom. I think at this stage
> of the game it's important for any serious investor to consider a
> position in, what has come to be known as, "green" stocks. But as
> always, it's the selection of the right stocks that will determine
> investment success. You have offered up some good companies to research.
> Like the above poster, a particular favorite of mine from your list
> is General Cable, a very well-run company that has a strong global
> reach and stands to profit immensely as the US and international
> community update their power grids and include alternative forms
> of energy production.
>
> Since you have an open mind toward more speculative stocks, and while
> we're on the subject of green, energy efficiency promotion, I want
> to draw your attention to a potentially explosive stock for 2010.
> It's a company called Vu1 (pronounced "view one") (VUOC) that has
> developed a light bulb using a new lighting technology called ESL
> (electron stimulated luminescense). They are in the final stages
> of development of their first bulb, a R30 reflector bulb and have
> started development on a tube-style bulb using ESL technology. Their
> bulbs contain no mercury, like you'll find in CFLs, they have a light
> quality virtually indistinguishable from an incandescent bulb, is
> 70% more efficient than an incandescent, and will have a lower spot
> price than comparable LEDs.
>
> Vu1 will start production sometime during the first half of 2010
> and should have a product on the shelf by next summer. They have
> 2 videos on their website that give a good succinct overview of their
> product: www.vu1.com/ESLupdate/.... They've recently
> been contacted by 2 museums about their lighting because the UVs
> they produce adversely affects artwork and they don't like the color
> quality of LEDs.
>
> I'm not one to invest in speculative companies, but I've researched
> this company to death and I consider it to be an opportunity of a
> lifetime.

2009: A Banner Year for My Clean Energy Stock Picks

Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:35:28 -0500

Why not buy LEAP puts on the Triple ETFs instead? Then the price erosion is working for you.

On Dec 28 12:06 PM fatpitch2 wrote:

> Tom:
>
> Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts!
>
> Regarding LT hedging of market risk, do you have any thoughts on
> buying LEAP Calls on the Short/Ultra-Short ETFs? I realize that to
> some extent the same erosion of value occurs esp. in volatile markets,
> but well let me just toss out an example I have been toying with....
> SRS has a 2-year high of over $250 and now trades at ~$7. The Jan
> 2011 Leap Calls with $10 strike are about $1.30

What Is Solyndra’s Cost per Watt?

Sat, 26 Dec 2009 23:16:17 -0500

Another reason a higher cost per watt might be justified for solyndra is the higher expected capacity factor without tracking, which is the whole point of their unique geometry. I still don't know if it's a good deal, but this is one more reason it's hard to make an apples to apples comparison with flat plate players.

Why Airline Stocks Are a Prime Candidate for the Short Side of a Clean Energy Portfolio

Sat, 26 Dec 2009 16:17:14 -0500

Your gallon numbers are about the same as mine; mine was a per passenger number (just like the airfare.) 18 gal/passenger * 233 passengers = 4200 gal.

Delta's website says they charge $15 for the first bag.
www.delta.com/travelin...

What airline did you say you were with?

If airlines only fly profitable flights, why aren't they profitable every quarter?

On Dec 23 11:31 AM Prof Pilot wrote:

> Your Ph.D may be in math but your facts and figures are way off.
> The 757 burns approximately 8800 lbs an hour. Your flight to DEN
> took at this time of year approximately 3:14 or so give or take.
> In short your flight burned 28,160 pounds of jet fuel. (around 4200
> gal) Delta Airlines also does not charge for the first bag as long
> as it is within Domestic and International weight restrictions published
> on the website. Domestically the max weight before baggage charges
> is 50 pounds according to Delta.com. Additionally, often airlines
> offer such reduced seats in coach because the flight is not able
> to be filled, however, many times your cheap ticket rides on the
> backs of big business fares in first class which alone can recoup
> your cheap coach fare and actually make the flight profitable. You
> got a great deal, but all it takes is one first class full fare ticket
> to offset your $115 gift and the airline is making money on those
> seats. If it wasn't it would change the aircraft flying it, alter
> the route, change the price, or lastly cancel the flight. I agree,
> ticket prices aren't nearly as high as they should be. Please, before
> you go slighting all airlines, do your homework. The number 1 priority
> at Delta is safety followed by timeliness and customer satisfaction.
>
> -A Professional Airline Pilot

What Emissions Restrictions Mean for Investors

Thu, 24 Dec 2009 03:50:59 -0500

Although Colorado has one of the world's largest reserves of oil shale, the report only mentioned it in passing... probably because the report was about what we could do to REDUCE carbon emissions.

Kerogen from oil shale is a very low quality fuel, with an energy density lower than corn flakes. Burning it for electricity would not only be massively environmentally destructive, it would produce CO2 at a rate comparable to electricity from coal.

Why Airline Stocks Are a Prime Candidate for the Short Side of a Clean Energy Portfolio

Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:47:55 -0500

I think this is a good point, HJ but I decided not to distinguish between particular airlines.... I think that is best left to industry experts. The decision on LUV has to be "Do other investors have an *unjustified* faith in LUV or not?" I can't answer that, I only know that they have a lot of faith in the airline.

I do know that LUV did well hedging fuel prices in 2008, but hedges only work for a couple of years, so they are just as exposed to long term changes in oil prices as any other airline... and efficient operations mean that fuel will be a higher *percentage* of their operating costs than other airlines.

On Dec 22 08:57 AM H.J. Huneycutt wrote:

> I totally agree on most of your points in regards to the airline
> industry. The entire industry is dependent upon government support.
> (Another example of misguided transportation policies that actively
> harm the environment and reduce effeciencies). If it weren't for
> that, fares would be significantly higher, which would reduce economies
> of scale.
>
> All the same, I'd probably avoid shorting LUV. If rising oil prices
> do harm the airline industry, it will probably weed out the weaker
> players and LUV is the strongest of the bunch.

Why Airline Stocks Are a Prime Candidate for the Short Side of a Clean Energy Portfolio

Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:43:43 -0500

Cap'n CCS-
I totally agree that the low price producer will win in the transport market. My point is that airlines (even LUV and JBLU) cannot continue to be the low cost producer when liquid fuel prices are rising... the only reason airlines are still cheap now is that they pay much less in fuel taxes than autos or trains.

I'm also aware of renewable alternatives to fossil fuels, but they are all research stage projects at this point, and, as I mention in the article, they will always be limited resources, even if they make it out of the lab. This means that the price of renewable fuels is likely to be set by the price of fossil fuels... it won't matter to the airlines if they are using expensive fossil fuels or expensive renewable fuels... the problem is that the fuel will be too expensive.

On Dec 22 10:10 AM captainccs wrote:

> This articles overanalyzes the airline industry because it starts
> from a totally mistaken viewpoint. Transportation, flying included,
> is a commodity, it does not have and never will have pricing power.
> In commodities the low cost provider wins. Curiously, the article
> mentions that two low cost providers, JetBlue and Southwest, don't
> charge for the first or second checked luggage yet misses entirely
> the significance of this policy. In commodities, if you run into
> problems, lower the price! That's what Ryanair has been doing for
> years in Europe to become their biggest local carrier.
>
> The article also misses the fact that several companies are working
> on making green jet fuel to replace hydrocarbon (fossil) based jet
> fuel. Rentech (RTK) is a prime example. While still a development
> stage company, its green jet fuel has been certified by both the
> Air Force and for commercial jets. Rentech is not the only one but
> I like them specially well because they make their fuel from waste
> solving two problems at once. Others have to plant crops or to cultivate
> algae meaning their feed-stock is more expensive and more energy
> intensive.
>
> Disclosure: Long RTK and short RYAAY puts.

Why Airline Stocks Are a Prime Candidate for the Short Side of a Clean Energy Portfolio

Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:37:17 -0500

Well, the Ph.D's in mathematics, but I'm notorious for making arithmetic mistakes... What was your result?

On Dec 22 07:11 AM godofbrew wrote:

> "My $114 flight on a Boeing 757 from Baltimore to Denver alone used
> about 18 gallons jet fuel (using numbers from here)."
>
> You’re not much of a mathematician are you?

Betting Against Shale Natural Gas Plays Using Puts

Mon, 21 Dec 2009 23:41:44 -0500

To all of you who say that betting against shale gas is risky/stupid/etc: DUH!
That's why you should use puts to limit your exposure.

Betting Against Shale Natural Gas Plays Using Puts

Mon, 21 Dec 2009 23:39:27 -0500

My point is that Art B *may* be right and Exxon *may* be a bunch of incompetents. As long as the true chance is higher than most investors think, using puts to short shale gas companies is a good bet.

On Dec 20 02:08 PM UK Gas Guru wrote:

> Exxon bet $31 billion on shale this week via XTO. So I guess your
> point is Art Berman is right and the largest company in the world
> are a bunch of incompetents?

Betting Against Shale Natural Gas Plays Using Puts

Mon, 21 Dec 2009 23:35:49 -0500

I'm not worried about Gold being right or wrong... even if he is right, such deep fossil fuel deposits would be incredibly expensive to extract. Expensive fossil fuel will lose out to renewable energy... our problem is cheap fossil fuels.

On Dec 20 12:18 PM Dirk McCoy wrote:

> Tom,
>
> Can you point me to a good web resource debunking Thomas Gold's theory
> that fossil fuels eminate from deep within the earth's crust- that
> the world is "full of oil", so to speak?
>
> My little research so far says:
>
> 1. Gold was a genius;
> 2. The Russians have increased their oil output by drilling deeper;
>
> 3. The best places to find oil are near the seismic zones Gold predicted;
>
> 4. The kind of microbes Gold said could be responsible for fossil
> fuel synthesis have been found at the ultra-deep locations he theorized.
>
>
> While I'm also not an expert here, the possibility that Gold is right
> is the most wishfullest of thinking- and just like hoping Y2K wouldn't
> be a disaster, sometimes wishful thinking combined with research
> can be a good thing...

Shorting Mexico: Next Tequila Crisis Will Be a Peak Oil Crisis

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:53:35 -0500

NotaCompletePessimist:
I guess I'm a complete pessimist when it comes to even technology from advanced oil service firms reversing the decline fo Mexican oil production. Sure, it would help compared to what otherwise would have been, but reverse the decline? I doubt it.

Not that it matters... Things will probably have to get a lot worse before the Mexicans let foreign firms into their oil fields.

On Dec 14 04:12 PM NotaCompletePessimist wrote:

> Interesting article.
>
> However, Mexican production could probably recover quickly if it
> were to open up its oil fields to foreign investment. Its not to
> hard to envision what judicious use of BJ Services or Schlumberger
> oil field services could do for them.
>
> As I read it, the bet here is that Mexico enters a state of paralysis
> that does not permit them to deal with their issues. Given the enormous
> progress they have made since Echeveria, Lopez Portillo, and more
> recently Salinas Gortierri, that might not be the safest bet.
>
> On the other hand, politically run oil companies aren't all that
> efficient...
>
> Sorry, not convinced this is all that simple.

Shorting Mexico: Next Tequila Crisis Will Be a Peak Oil Crisis

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:47:35 -0500

I'm thinking of this a a Long US/Short Mexico trade (i.e. using it as a hedge.) But long resource-rich Brazil might work, too, although Brazil has already seen a huge run-up, even in comparison to the US.

On Dec 14 01:34 PM Soldalma wrote:

> Good points. The spat between Calderon and Ortiz is also a negative,
> although Ortiz's replacement would also be competent.
>
> I had the same idea months ago, sold calls, and lost a bit. If the
> US stock market continues to rally this trade will not work. Maybe
> it is better to do a Long Brazil/Short Mexico trade.

Green Energy Investing for Beginners, Part III

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:36:26 -0500

robdoc-
It's quite true that many of the prognostications I'm using may not be true. As I said in the paragraph right before "Building Your Portfolio:"
If you disagree with my judgments here, you should now have the tools to incorporate your own thoughts on our energy future into your own table, and use the result to allocate your portfolio.

On Nov 30 02:40 PM robdoc wrote:

> I'm a little bit surprised by the prognostications that are taken
> for fact as the basis for this article.
> There is room for all sorts of paradigm shifting within this realm.
>
> Distributive power generation has the capacity to be a game changer
> on a global scale.
> Doc's statement:
> "When you factor in all these energy and material requirements for
> making an alternative energy system (with our current technology)
> and then converting the world to it, there just isn't enough energy
> and materials to make the change. As a consequence, all the existing
> alternative energy strategies that are currently available will never
> be profitable in the long run, and any investor money thrown at them
> now will never turn a profit except in the short term due to volatility.
> " This presupposes that:
> 1. Technology will not advance. (which you already factored into
> the argument). This is an interesting assumption considering mankind's
> history of advancement.
> 2. That we understand all the current consequences and costs of
> a fossil fuel economy.
> 3. That pricing of finite resources will be static.

Green Energy Investing for Beginners, Part III

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:32:24 -0500

Doc-
Although your comments are not really about my article, I actually addressed them in an article last month:
cleanenergywonk.com/20.../

On Nov 30 08:28 AM Doc 224899 wrote:

> I guess I'll have to side with Bill Gates' opinon on this subject:
> we haven't yet made the R&D breakthroughs that will enable us
> to install an economically and environmentally acceptable alternative
> to carbon-based fuel utilities. All the technologies you're touting
> lack the potention to yield more net energy than they require, if
> you factor in the energy required for processing the materials to
> build the needed infrastructure to support the alternative energy
> utility, building the utility itself, and making all the materials
> needed for the process of converting from existing to alternative
> energy production.
>
> Basically, pre-existing and alternative energy utilities will have
> to be connected to the pre-existing grid, at least temporarily, in
> order to avoid service interruption, before any new grid can be built
> and used.
>
> Plus, energy and materials will ALSO have to be used to maintain
> and grow the conventional energy production network while the alternative
> energy network is being built, during which time the alternative
> energy network is "taking" but not "giving back".
>
> When you factor in all these energy and material requirements for
> making an alternative energy system (with our current technology)
> and then converting the world to it, there just isn't enough energy
> and materials to make the change. As a consequence, all the existing
> alternative energy strategies that are currently available will never
> be profitable in the long run, and any investor money thrown at them
> now will never turn a profit except in the short term due to volatility.

Is the New Smart Grid ETF That Smart?

Sun, 29 Nov 2009 04:36:00 -0500

Guys,
This ETF is not that bad. In fact, it's my second favorite, after PTRP. It's misnamed, but a useful ETF is a useful ETF by any other name.

Danno- any index fund will contain both "lousy" and 'great" companies. That's the whole *point* of indexing... to keep costs down and avoid making bad decisions stock picking buy buying a little of everything. If you want only "good" companies, you can't index... you either have to stock pick yourself, or you have to find a competent fund manager to do it for you. And competent stock pickers/fund mangers are a very rare breed. Worse, they're nearly impossible to tell from lucky incompetent ones.

GE belongs in this index not because smart grid is a meaningful part of their bottom line (yet), but because GE is a major player in what is still a very small sector. GE has a good chance of getting a significant fraction of all smart grid business.

10 Green Energy Gambles: A Q3 Update

Sun, 29 Nov 2009 04:18:02 -0500

I stopped following CZZ a while ago, so I no longer have an opinion about its fundamentals.
I'm not a technical analyst, so I probably wouldn't have any opinion about price momentum even if I were still watching the stock.

Everybody... I'm trying to reduce the number of stocks I follow, so I can do a better job with the remainder. These stocks, as "gambles" were among the first to go... I'm a value investor, and I like value stocks.

I think the evidence supports my approach. Despite this being a great year for stocks so far, my 10 conservative bets are out pacing these 10 gambles by about 17% as of Nov 29. (see www.altenergystocks.co...)

Sure, these stocks have great stories, but stories don't make you rich.

On Oct 13 10:05 PM fwallace55 wrote:

> CZZ is on the uprise.... hmmmm what to think of this upward action?

10 Green Energy Gambles: A Q3 Update

Sun, 29 Nov 2009 04:06:07 -0500

The reason I sold my BCON is that I think the market as a whole is overvalued... I'm only holding on to the strongest companies. BCON is cash flow negative, and not likely to become profitable for a couple years, and it looks like they'll need to raise more $$ before then... I expect to see much better buying opportunities in the next year or two.

On Oct 12 04:40 PM jp17622 wrote:

> Tom - what is preventing you from taking a stake in BCON?

10 Green Energy Gambles: A Q3 Update

Sun, 29 Nov 2009 04:02:51 -0500

I'm not covering APWR because I have not researched it. I have not researched it because 1) it's a wind company, which is not a bad sector, but not the most interesting to me (see my upcoming article next week: green energy investing for beginners, part IV: target portfolio) and 2) it's based in China, which makes me uncomfortable.

It's silly to think that there is only one stock that you can make you profit in any sector.... there are always dozens, if not hundreds. It's more important to avoid big losers than to grab big winners.

I can't cover everything, and other sectors are more interesting to me than wind.

Green Energy Investing for Beginners, Part II

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:53:21 -0500

The role of charitable donations in financial planning is two-fold. First, tax planning as you suggest (although since the tax saving is always smaller than the donation, it still requires some altruism.)
Second, planned donations should also be considered as a liquidity requirement. If you're planning to donate $1000 a year to your church from your savings, you should make sure that your have sufficient liquidity to cover this.

Regarding your first point, no matter how much you protest, your investment action has knock-on effects in the real world. Charity is money set to moral causes, rather than financial ones.

There is a large school of thought (to which you seem to belong) that all profit-maximizing behavior is good (in short, "Greed is Good.") This school of thought is, in essence, logically incompatible with charity (which is probably why you assume that everyone who donates to charity is motivated solely by tax planning.

I happen to disagree that profit maximization is always good, even when it is legal.

Most of what went on that led to the financial crisis was both profit-maximizing, and legal. However, taken as a whole, it caused harm to our economy. Many large financial institutions were legally taking very large risks with what turned out to be taxpayer money. To the extent that they were aware that others would be bearing that risk, their actions were immoral, and now that society recognizes the problems they created, taking such risks with public money for private profit should also be made illegal.

If we invest in companies that are engaging in acts we see as immoral, we are supporting those acts by helping those companies obtain funding. Would you loan money to a man who wanted to use it to buy a gun to kill people?

Since you are a Christian, you must have morals. Why do you insist that your investments should not have morals? What would Jesus invest in?

On Nov 13 03:32 PM Thomas Smicklas wrote:

> Donations are investing? Promoting religious,political or social
> agendas under the banner of investing is an interesting concept.
> I do own a few green technology stocks within my portfolio - but
> they are owned to increase the value of the portfolio, not to be
> confused with donations or ideology strategies which should never
> be touted to investors as such. For the truly rich, CFAs will use
> giving (donating) as a tax strategy - to avoid contributing what
> I believe many view as their fair share of taxes. How noble. That
> is the essence of a substantial part of the CFA curriculum of which
> you speak.
>
> On Nov 13 01:17 PM Tom Konrad wrote:

Green Energy Investing for Beginners, Part II

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:35:46 -0500

static.seekingalpha.co...">

On Nov 13 12:42 PM jerrydd wrote:
> Regretfully this author doesn't know much about actual technologies

Jerry,
We disagree about the economics of green technology, and that is part of investing. Disagreements between investors are the source of one investor's ability to beat the market, and also the source of other investors' underperfomrance.

Your assertion that I'm wrong is worthy of consideration by all readers.

In contrast, your assertion that I'm uninformed is rather humorous. Anyone wishing to test this latter assertion should visit my website, AltEnergyStocks.com, and read a few of the hundreds of articles I've written over the last 3+ years.

Green Energy Investing for Beginners, Part II

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:17:33 -0500

Thomas,
I suspect that your complaint that is really that you *don't* believe that investing in green energy is the right thing to do, not that it should not be part of an investment allocation strategy. Do you also believe that planned donations to charity (because they are the "right thing to do") should not be considered as part of investing strategy? If so, your attitude conflicts with the approach to asset allocation I studied as part of the Chartered Financial Analyst(R) curriculum.

I see an investment in Green Energy because "it is the right thing to do" as part investment and part donation to charity, and hence believe they should be included in any asset allocation plan where the belief exists.

On Nov 13 11:37 AM Thomas Smicklas wrote:

> "Is it the right thing to do" is not especially astute investment
> advice. Green investing is just another sector that will be subject
> to the vagaries of the market. Even moreso, green investing, being
> a recent managerie of disparate eclectic securities, will be the
> recipient, as are most sectors, of unintended cosequences such as
> protectionist regulations (GE is already complaining about that in
> their Asian market) government subsidies,litigation, and, God forbid,
> if the premise of green technology to save the planet is flawed.
>
>
> There may well be a case made for a double short ETF in this sector
> if profits (the prime reason for investing) are to be made, short
> and long term.
>
> That said, I enjoyed your article and appreciate your view.

Green Energy Investing for Beginners, Part II

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:06:36 -0500

Douglas,
These are excellent points, especially for people who have money outside an IRA or other retirement account to invest.

If you do have money outside a retirement account to invest, and own, rather than rent a home, here is the hierarchy for using that money that I'd advocate:

1) Pay off any debt carrying an interest rate over 10% (credit card, etc)
2) High return energy efficiency investments such as attic insulation, caulking, CFLs, changing the filter on you furnace/AC, hot water heater blankets, ...
3) Maybe a garden if you also have the necessary time to invest.
4) Pay off other debt, including your mortgage.
5) Lower return energy efficiency investments, such as upgraded appliances, furnace, water heater, solar hot water, solar PV (IF you are in a state with good incentives.)
6) Green energy stocks or funds.

On Nov 13 10:55 AM Douglas Hvistendahl wrote:

> It is useful to compare possible stock investments with "reality"
> investments. Examples: even an apartment dweller can grow a few plants
> in containers; someone in a small town can have a backyard garden;
> if you own your house, a solar hot water system pays off if well
> designed; etc. These "investments" may not return cash, but are totally
> inflation/deflation proof, and for some of them the primary requirement
> is a bit of labor.
>
> Such comparison reduces my overconfidence. When a little figuring
> shows that increasing garden space by 5% reduces the need to buy
> food by more than our probable return in a stock, even figuring in
> the labor, I go with the garden. Ditto for the others.

Green Energy Investing for Beginners, Part I

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:01:47 -0500

Thanks for the complement, but don't get too excited. As I said, "it's impossible to say if my 1 3/4 year track record is skill or luck, but at least the costs are low." or, in other words, "Past performance is no guarantee of future results."

I will try, though. And the costs will stay low.

On Nov 08 08:02 PM DLB40 wrote:

> " My ten green stocks for 2008 lost 55% that year, but this was still
> better than all the ETFs and all but one of the mutual funds in 2008.
> Most of these lost between 60% and 70% of their value in 2008. In
> the first three quarters of 2009, my ten picks returned 41.5%, handily
> beating the green ETF I chose as a benchmark"
>
> Wow I can hardly wait for the new list!!!

Geothermal Companies Receive Cost Sharing Grants

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:07:03 -0500

I have not looked into Magma. It was interesting that Magma got a big grant from DOE, but I haven't spent the time looking at the company yet in order to render an opinion.

On Nov 05 07:10 PM The Geoffster wrote:

> What do you think of Magma Energy?

Geothermal Companies Receive Cost Sharing Grants

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:39:34 -0500

20/20-
In fact, most of the geothermal industry is like the mining exploration industry: they acquire mineral rights and drill to find hot water. Saying this is not an industry is like saying oil wildcatters are not an industry.
Vertically Ormat actually supplies far more turbines to geothermal projects than UTX (used only by Raser, as far as I know.) Ormat is a vertically integrated geothermal company, from exploration to drilling to turbines to production.

Read my geothermal industry primer to get a better understanding of the companies involved.
www.altenergystocks.co...

On Nov 02 12:33 PM 20-20 Hind sight wrote:

> There is no such thing as a geothermal "industry." At most, they
> apply for licenses and do some engineering. The machinery installed
> are off-the-shelf units from giants like UTX.
>
> For obvious reasons, good geothermal sites are far from electricity
> consumers.
>
> Geothermal is an intriguing concept (who doesn't like free energy?)
> but it will never be a mainstream business for investors to profit
> from. IMHO

Green Energy Experts: Why Do They Buy Solars?

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:47:14 -0400

HJ- Will deal with each point in turn.

1) Successful investing requires work. People who don't want to work make dumb investments. There are lots of people who don't want to work.

2) The number of solar cos is a reason to stay away. The industry is too competitive. The number of solar companies is also the *product* of the unfortunate tendency for investors to favor solar. VCs make the same mistake small investors do, and because of the popularity of the sector, it's easier for the company to IPO.

3) Agreed. I've nothing to add.

4) The ETF I listed, PTRP, contains both bicycles and mass transit. I also list a bus stock (New Flyer=Mass Transit). There are more mass transit plays here: www.altenergystocks.co...

On Oct 30 11:32 AM H.J. Huneycutt wrote:

> I largely agree with you --- solar is sexier in investing circles,
> in spite of the fact that it's one of the least promising solutions
> to energy concerns.
>
> I'm not precisely sure why people like solar so much, but here are
> a few thoughts:
>
> (1) Everyone understands solar power on some basic level. In fact,
> most of us have owned solar powered calculators and seen solar in
> action before. Whereas, how many average Joes understand geothermal
> power?
>
> (2) There are a lot more recognizable pure-play solar companies out
> there than companies in other cleantech related industries. It's
> difficult to find pure-play wind providers that are not OTC; but
> you can find dozens of solar companies. The competing solar manufacturers
> seem to have an emotional appeal to investors because there's a "who's
> going to win?" factor and comparability.
>
> (3) Some of the companies operating in the cleantech sphere are basically
> conglomerates. For instance, ABB's a great company, but they are
> like the GE of Europe (without the financial junk). It's a good
> investment, but it's not a fun company to analyze and they have their
> foot in so many different things, it's difficult to follow them all,
> so investors don't really understand them as well.
>
> (4) You mention investing in bicycles and mass transit --- you're
> absolutely right that these are better solutions than supposedly
> "fuel efficient" cars that don't really solve most of our problems.
> But the problem is --- how do you invest in bicycles and mass transit?
> Maybe you know of bicycle manufacturers sold on public markets, but
> I don't --- and I've looked before. Mass transit is difficult to
> invest in as well; most providers are publicly-owned. The only way
> to play it is to buy into manufacturers that make products related
> to mass transit like railcar manufacturers. But I don't think most
> people think that far and "finished products" are much sexier than
> "materials used for the manufacture of ..."
>
>
> I've become increasingly skeptical of the solar sector, but if I
> had to pick companies in that sector, I like LDK Solar (seekingalpha.com/symbo...)
> and Evergreen Solar (seekingalpha.com/symbo...) the most.
> ESLR probably manufacturers the highest quality solar panels and
> I think they have some of the best minds on the engineering side
> working for them. Still, I have my doubts about the sector in general.