Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
AeroWesty
Topic Author
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

Green Stocks Not So Green?

Mon Jun 04, 2012 6:43 pm

I was cleaning up bookmarks this morning, and came upon one I'd set for the stock quote for Vestas Wind Systems, the Danish wind turbine manufacturer. Back in 2008 the company was being talked up in all of the investment blogs and hit a high of 692DKR in August of that year, but two months later had dropped to 217DKR as the events of the GFC took hold.

When I clicked on the link to see how it's priced today, I see it's trading in the 32 DKR range now. Egads!

Are there really any success stories out there in the green energy field, or did the industry simply go through its own version of the dot-com bubble, separate from the GFC effect?

I'd be interested in your thoughts, as it seems green energy just isn't so 'green' any longer, even though there still seems to be a demand for it, especially for solar power.

5-year VWS.CO graph: Yahoo Finance VWS.CO
International Homo of Mystery
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Green Stocks Not So Green?

Mon Jun 04, 2012 6:54 pm

Quoting AeroWesty (Thread starter):
events of the GFC

What is GFC?

Quoting AeroWesty (Thread starter):
I see it's trading in the 32 DKR range now. Egads!

Vestas has of cheap competition from China in the "low" end - and the on "high" end they have competition from GE wind turbines, which are technically superior.

Quoting AeroWesty (Thread starter):
I'd be interested in your thoughts, as it seems green energy just isn't so 'green' any longer,

There is plenty of. In the US less than 3% of the energy comes from renewable sources. I'll be the fist to admit that there is a technical 25-30% limit on the amount of intermittent energy sources, but between 3% and 25% there is still a lot of space for renewable.

Also. affecting the industry is the cheap cost of natural gas (what? $2.50?) that makes renewable more expensive in the short term.

Plus the expiration of PTC at the end of the year. All these factors contribute to Vestas stock price
Step into my office, baby
 
User avatar
larshjort
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:54 pm

RE: Green Stocks Not So Green?

Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:01 pm

Vestas biggest problem has been their Sea wind turbines, or lack of them. Of the 5 offshore windfarms my dad has worked 0 has used Vestas turbines. On one farm in Denmark they had to replace all the gearboxes within ~5 years, and that is rather expensive at sea.

/Lars
139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4,
 
AeroWesty
Topic Author
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Green Stocks Not So Green?

Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:13 pm

Quoting mt99 (Reply 1):
What is GFC?

Global Financial Crisis

Quoting mt99 (Reply 1):
I'll be the fist to admit that there is a technical 25-30% limit on the amount of intermittent energy sources, but between 3% and 25% there is still a lot of space for renewable.

What I've read about is the lack of infrastructure in place to move energy from remote wind locations onto the grid, without many plans to update it due to the expense. Solar can be far more localized, like installing panels on factory roofs, etc.

Quoting larshjort (Reply 2):
On one farm in Denmark they had to replace all the gearboxes within ~5 years, and that is rather expensive at sea.

Interesting. One thing I read in an article about their last earnings report was that they had unexpectedly high warranty costs, but it didn't go into much detail. Didn't realize Vestas' share of offshore farms was suffering so badly. Certainly that would be a contribution to their slump.
International Homo of Mystery
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Green Stocks Not So Green?

Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:26 pm

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 3):
Solar can be far more localized, like installing panels on factory roofs, etc.

Eh,,in the grand scheme of things,, these installation are merely toys

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 3):
What I've read about is the lack of infrastructure in place to move energy from remote wind locations onto the grid, without many plans to update it due to the expense.

That is also true. The US does not have long term Energy Policy which would address this issue.

There are also advances in the Wind Turbines Technologies which allow greater efficiencies at locations with lower wind that are closer to load centers.
Step into my office, baby
 
EricR
Posts: 1226
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:15 pm

RE: Green Stocks Not So Green?

Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:49 pm

Quoting AeroWesty (Thread starter):
Are there really any success stories out there in the green energy field, or did the industry simply go through its own version of the dot-com bubble, separate from the GFC effect?



The green energy field is a vast, speculative space with constantly evolving technology. I don't think green energy is a bubble per se, but I think there are/were bubbles within the green energy field. As technology and market conditions change, so do the prospects for those companies.

For example, solar stocks did well several years ago, but many solar stocks started to decline once government subsidies were reduced or completely eliminated (as in some European countries). Furthermore, companies such as First Solar encountered unforeseen (or unannounced) issues with its solar technology which resulted in a sharp drop in stock price.

Natural gas seems to be the next big forefront in the green energy space as it is a much cleaner burning fuel. My opinion is that stocks with heavy concentrations in natural gas could be the next to benefit. In my opinion, the remainder of the green energy field is too speculative at the moment.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Green Stocks Not So Green?

Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:30 pm

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 3):
What I've read about is the lack of infrastructure in place to move energy from remote wind locations onto the grid, without many plans to update it due to the expense.

The great hidden cost of "green" dispersed electricity generation: how to move it onto the grid. It's a nightmare, really, if you go that way in a big way.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 4):
Eh,,in the grand scheme of things,, these installation are merely toys

   Despite its' PC factor, what's called green energy today IMHO will never amount to more than a few % of the overall mix. Germany will be phasing out subsidies for solar next year since they finally figured out they were:
a) being robbed blind, and
b) jobs were being sucked out of the economy.

http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/3741?print=yes
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/green-jobs-fact-or-fiction/

Quoting EricR (Reply 5):
Natural gas seems to be the next big forefront in the green energy space as it is a much cleaner burning fuel. My opinion is that stocks with heavy concentrations in natural gas could be the next to benefit. In my opinion, the remainder of the green energy field is too speculative at the moment.

Well, natural gas is not exactly green, but it is "greener" than, say, coal. There's no doubt that shale gas availability will keep the price of natural gas in the $2/MBtu range for some time. Nuclear can't compete due to high capital startup costs (although once in service it's pretty cheap), hydro same, a lot of committed capital. Gas turbines can be sited and permitted usually within about 18 months. Siemens, for example, makes a very efficient modular 100 MWe unit, so scaling to need is not an issue.

I think longer term hydro and nuclear will dominate. If CCS technology can be demonstrated reliable, and Norway has two efforts underway in this area, then coal can make a comeback, and there's lots of it. In the back of my mind, I still think we should be looking hard at geothermal.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Green Stocks Not So Green?

Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:39 pm

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 6):
Germany will be phasing out subsidies for solar next year since they finally figured out they were:
a) being robbed blind, and
b) jobs were being sucked out of the economy.

all other forms of energy are also subsided (Coal, nuclear, gas) -why should "green" energy not be?

If you want to get rid of subsidizes, that great - but let cut them across the board shall we?
Step into my office, baby
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9310
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Green Stocks Not So Green?

Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:01 pm

Quoting mt99 (Reply 7):
all other forms of energy are also subsided (Coal, nuclear, gas) -why should "green" energy not be?

The "subsidies" for coal, oil, gas, and nuclear are nothing more than tax deductions for depreciation on capital assets, which can be made by businesses in any industry. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that producers of fossil energy are net tax payers. That is a far cry from direct cash infusions given to the green industry.

When people say "eliminate subsidies for oil & gas companies," they are basically saying "write a separate tax code for oil & gas companies," as if an even more complicated tax code is a value-add for society.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Green Stocks Not So Green?

Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:01 pm

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 8):
The "subsidies" for coal, oil, gas, and nuclear are nothing more than tax deductions for depreciation on capital assets, which can be made by businesses in any industry.

Hmm like the "Production Tax Credit" you mean?

"According to the Congressional Budget Office, in 2011 federal support for the development and production of fuels and energy technologies totaled an estimated $24 billion, given in tax preferences (special deductions, special tax rates, credits, and grants totaling $20.5 billion) and Department of Energy spending programs (which totaled $3.5 billion).

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_1...focus-on-tax-reform-not-subsidies/

I guess the CBO has it wrong then. Note the word "special" above.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 8):
When people say "eliminate subsidies for oil & gas companies," they are basically saying "write a separate tax code for oil & gas companies," as if an even more complicated tax code is a value-add for society

The president of Shell calls them "subsides". who am i to question him?

That is exactly what Shell wants:

"The president of Shell Oil said Friday that removing the tax subsidies and tax breaks received by oil and gas companies - which recorded some of the largest profits last year - is unfair because of the size of the companies. Instead, Marvin Odum said the government should be focused on broader tax reform.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_1...focus-on-tax-reform-not-subsidies/



Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 8):
It has been demonstrated repeatedly that producers of fossil energy are net tax payers.


And green energy are not? Let me inform our CFO that we can stop paying taxes at our company

[Edited 2012-06-04 16:02:20]


[Edited 2012-06-04 16:03:39]
Step into my office, baby
 
Molykote
Posts: 1240
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:21 pm

RE: Green Stocks Not So Green?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:43 am

Quoting mt99 (Reply 9):
The president of Shell calls them "subsides". who am i to question him?
Quoting mt99 (Reply 9):
That is exactly what Shell wants:

"The president of Shell Oil said Friday that removing the tax subsidies and tax breaks received by oil and gas companies - which recorded some of the largest profits last year - is unfair because of the size of the companies. Instead, Marvin Odum said the government should be focused on broader tax reform.

How do you get that from the article you provided?

(1) The article you quoted (or more specifically Charlie Rose of CBS) describes the tax situation surrounding this production using the word "subsidies".

(2) The president of Shell (predictably) refutes the above assertion.


"Nevertheless, a dollar's a dollar," said Rose. "How much have subsidies contributed to your bottom line at Shell Oil?"

"Well, first of all, we don't see these as subsidies," Odum said.
Speedtape - The aspirin of aviation!
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Green Stocks Not So Green?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:59 am

Quoting Molykote (Reply 10):
How do you get that from the article you provided?

Ha, you are right.. That is what i get from answering post while i rush out of the office. Mea Culpa.

But the fact remains that every energy source gets money from the governments (call it grants, tax benefits, special deductions, special deprecations, etc) so why not give some of these to the green industry? Everyone in bed or everyone on the floor
Step into my office, baby
 
cpd
Posts: 6771
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: Green Stocks Not So Green?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 2:32 am

Quoting mt99 (Reply 4):
Eh,,in the grand scheme of things,, these installation are merely toys

But we are all doing that kind of thing, so it makes a bit of a difference.

Even I've installed solar power on my roof. I have solar hot water and solar panels for electricity. Currently a 2.5kW system (10 Trina panels), but I can upgrade to a 3.5kW (inverter is good for 3.6kW).

Solar however is being taken over by Chinese companies, they can do this stuff very cheaply.

Enough people here are taking advantage of government grants to install solar power. It's really taking off. People are eager to reduce their electricity bills, and by doing net-feed installs, the solar power provides for the home first, and if there is excess, it is exported to the power-grid, and the power company pays you for the power you generate for them. I have a meter in my system that measures what I generate, and what I bring in from the grid.
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Green Stocks Not So Green?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 2:44 am

Quoting mt99 (Reply 4):
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 3):
Solar can be far more localized, like installing panels on factory roofs, etc.

Eh,,in the grand scheme of things,, these installation are merely toys

Why? At peak times they produce 22,000 megawatt of electricity in Germany - that's the power of roughly 20 nuclear power plants. And Germany isn't the sunniest country.
I support the right to arm bears
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Green Stocks Not So Green?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 3:40 am

Quoting cpd (Reply 12):
Enough people here are taking advantage of government grants to install solar power. It's really taking off.

You would get a bigger bang from your subsided AUS$ if the gov would subsidize utility scale PV installations rather than tiny ones. Usually you see economies of scale starting to hit at about 15MW
Step into my office, baby
 
cpd
Posts: 6771
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: Green Stocks Not So Green?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:18 am

Quoting mt99 (Reply 14):
would subsidize utility scale PV

Are you kidding? It's too much of a good idea, that'd be socialism defined! Can't have that. (note my sarcasm).

Hence why we all have to fork out massive amounts of our own savings (I paid over $5000 in total) to do this, all in an attempt to off-set scary electricity prices.

We know that large scale utility-grade PV installations are never going to happen in my life-time - there are too many vested interests preventing it, so people are taking it into their own hands. Some people took out loans to install quite big 16 or 18kW systems on their homes, and with a 60cents/kWh pay rate back in the day, they paid the loan back quickly and made huge profits. These systems typically made way more power than was used by the owner - hence the handsome profits.

Anyhow, I made the move already - I'm not going to wait. But in reality, I should have done it much sooner. It would have been worth it. So I'm now becoming acutely aware of the power usage in the house, and what each device uses and I'm trying to do what I can to minimise that.

[Edited 2012-06-04 21:22:22]
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6374
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: Green Stocks Not So Green?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:28 am

Quoting mt99 (Reply 1):
In the US less than 3% of the energy comes from renewable sources.

According to IEA, the US is a little over 8% electricity comes from renewalble sources. Though I will admit that 3/4 of that comes from HydroElectric power generation. Though a very old souce of electricity - it is still renewable.
Not all who wander are lost.
 
Geezer
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:37 am

RE: Green Stocks Not So Green?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:27 am

Quoting mt99 (Reply 4):
Eh,,in the grand scheme of things,, these installation are merely toys

I'm assuming you are referring to solar in your remark; I don't pay that much attention to solar; where I live in western Indiana, we have several very large scale wind farms fairly nearby; I pass by about four of them every time we drive up
to the Chicago area. I hear many people harping about them who I'm fairly certain know almost nothing about what they are talking about.

I don't know a whole heck of a lot about them myself, at least not nearly as much as I would like to know. What little I do know comes from two sources; we have talked on several occasions with land owners who have leased agricultural acreage to the people installing the wind turbines. They are doing extremely well; each individual turbine only requires a fairly small "plott", (about 1/2 acre I believe, but I'm going from memory on that, so don't quote me) The farmers I've spoke with all report that they receive 12 K per yr, each plott, plus a certain amount of free power, plus a small % of the net profit derived from sale of power from turbine on each plott. ( Believe me, that's a hell of a lot more than you make growing row crops ! )

I also spoke at length with a young fellow that is a union electrician, who works each summer for the electrical contractor installing the turbines; he tells me that they keep building more turbines every summer, and that's been going on for maybe 4 or 5 yrs now; so apparently the investors backing all of this must be making a fair return, or they would be looking for "greener pasture" by now.

If anyone has any links to detailed information about Indiana wind farms, I would be delighted to hear about it.

Charley
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
 
cpd
Posts: 6771
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: Green Stocks Not So Green?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:34 am

Quoting geezer (Reply 17):
I'm assuming you are referring to solar in your remark; I don't pay that much attention to solar; where I live in western Indiana, we have several very large scale wind farms fairly nearby; I pass by about four of them every time we drive up
to the Chicago area. I hear many people harping about them who I'm fairly certain know almost nothing about what they are talking about.

Wind farms are a great idea in wind-swept open areas, especially where there is a lot of space. We have some big installations south of Sydney as you are on the highway going towards Canberra.

However, the power you get from them is still at whatever price the people that provide the electricity to you wants to make it.   Solar installations in the homes actively reduce the cost of your electricity bill by reducing your reliance on power from the electricity grid.

When electricity bills can be over $600 per quarter (or even more for some larger houses), that's a lot of money. Installing solar power, you can make those costs back pretty quickly if you are in the right location with plenty of light (eg, no nearby tall trees or buildings shading the panels).

That's why most people are installing them. Here, it's nothing to do with "being green", it's about saving money!

But, anyhow - anything to reduce our reliance on stuff like coal-fired power stations is a good thing.
 
User avatar
larshjort
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:54 pm

RE: Green Stocks Not So Green?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:26 am

Quoting cpd (Reply 18):
However, the power you get from them is still at whatever price the people that provide the electricity to you wants to make it. Solar installations in the homes actively reduce the cost of your electricity bill by reducing your reliance on power from the electricity grid.

When electricity bills can be over $600 per quarter (or even more for some larger houses), that's a lot of money. Installing solar power, you can make those costs back pretty quickly if you are in the right location with plenty of light (eg, no nearby tall trees or buildings shading the panels).

How does it work in Australia? We recently got new rules in Denmark where every kW you produce is deducted 1:1 on you electricity bill and if you produce more you get the powerplants costprice per kW. a kW cost about 2kr with all taxes and fees and at the moment a kW cost about 0.34kr, which is what you get if you produce more than you use.

/Lars
139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4,
 
cpd
Posts: 6771
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: Green Stocks Not So Green?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:01 pm

Quoting larshjort (Reply 19):
How does it work in Australia? We recently got new rules in Denmark where every kW you produce is deducted 1:1

It's never been that lucrative here in Australia, hence why we don't have installations like that. At best, you would be paid 60 cents per kW/h you provided to the grid, at least in my state. Other states may be different. Because I installed late, the payment is 8 cents per kWh. The current state government stopped anyone else being on the more generous earlier scheme because it was costing them too much money.  

They tried to cancel the existing people from the 60 cent scheme as well. But then there was threats of legal action from individuals on that scheme, and the government backed away from it. The more generous rate expires I think in a few years.

In NSW, the way mine is done (and the way most installations are configured), the power we make on our systems powers our home first. If, after having provided power to your home, there is still excess power - then it goes out to the power grid. There is a meter installed that measures what you output to the grid, along with what you input to the grid.

Power used from the grid is shown as a number:

 000000324

Power sent out to the grid is shown as

-000000324

Note the minus sign in front of it. So if your reading of power sent out to the grid is higher than what you are taking from the grid, you will be given a credit at the next bill, assuming of course it remains that way when the meter is read by the electricity people. Some people making large amounts of excess power demand that the power companies pay this money out, rather than just giving a credit on the bill.  
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6374
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: Green Stocks Not So Green?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:35 pm

Quoting cpd (Reply 18):
That's why most people are installing them. Here, it's nothing to do with "being green", it's about saving money!

I'm seeing more and more wind turbines in the area northeast of Dallas, TX at private homes on larger lots.

I also understand from friends in the construction industry, a small but sizable percentage of new homes in non-development areas are being built with geo-thermal heat/cooling capacity.

You can't do solar or wind at a home in any development in this region - but for folks who have a couple acres - wind and geo-thermal can help cut down those $500 per month summer cooling bills for a 2,500 sq ft home.
Not all who wander are lost.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Green Stocks Not So Green?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:50 pm

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 16):
Quoting mt99 (Reply 1):
In the US less than 3% of the energy comes from renewable sources.

According to IEA, the US is a little over 8% electricity comes from renewalble sources. Though I will admit that 3/4 of that comes from HydroElectric power generation. Though a very old souce of electricity - it is still renewable.


As long as there is enough rainfall to refill the headwater regions that eventually fill the dam reservoir. Current trends for southern USA contra-indicate. It might not be as renewable as you think.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 21):
I also understand from friends in the construction industry, a small but sizable percentage of new homes in non-development areas are being built with geo-thermal heat/cooling capacity.

This is becoming a fairly common practice in Western Canada, assuming you have the right type of subsurface geology, and I think in Texas you would as well. Once the pipes are in place, you merely need to fill with brine and start the pump.

My g.f. and I are planning to build when I sell this place and geothermal will certainly be near the top of the list. Despite the fact that it gets frickin' cold in Western Canada in the winter, frost only goes about 8 feet down. The brine pipes will be well below that.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 21):
You can't do solar or wind at a home in any development in this region - but for folks who have a couple acres - wind and geo-thermal can help cut down those $500 per month summer cooling bills for a 2,500 sq ft home.

If you're ever planning to do a custom-build home, LEED principles will diminish the need for active heating and cooling. But it comes at a cost, of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaders...in_Energy_and_Environmental_Design

gives a basic outline.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6374
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: Green Stocks Not So Green?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:34 pm

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 22):
It might not be as renewable as you think.

The developing problem in the US is not from lack of rainfall to renew lakes behind hydro power plants - but having enough water for various needs.

Simply put, development in places like California, Arizona, Texas and other areas is rapidly approaching the point where more water is used by people, industries and such than Mother Nature replaces on a 10 year average.

Here northeast of Dallas, our water supply source has been cut by 28% due to invasive zebra mussels. However, every city in the NTMWD which is imposing water use restrictions on current residents - is actively promoting new industrial development, new housing developments - all of which increase the water demand greater than the amount saved by the restrictions.

If our water supply for lakes is permanently reduced - we will have a lot more serious problems than worrying about the loss of electrical power generation capacity.

[Edited 2012-06-05 10:35:09]
Not all who wander are lost.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Green Stocks Not So Green?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:34 pm

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 23):
Here northeast of Dallas, our water supply source has been cut by 28% due to invasive zebra mussels. However, every city in the NTMWD which is imposing water use restrictions on current residents - is actively promoting new industrial development, new housing developments - all of which increase the water demand greater than the amount saved by the restrictions.

I hear you on that. The zebra mussels are a particular problem in the Great Lakes as well, and pretty hard to deal with. They tend to kill off the fish as well.

Your example is classic of how local and regional government or near government entities often pursue conflicting strategies. One tends to look for short term gains, the other for longer term. It works up here, too.

But there is no doubt that climate change does not, given current projections, favour the South. Hotter and drier.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14412
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: Green Stocks Not So Green?

Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:18 am

With that title I thought you were going to point out that green stocks might contain companies that are not green at all. There was a report on this the other day on French television, a green stock included Total. It was explained that really green companies didn't bring much money, so they put Total in to make the stock attractive. A lot of people here are buying such stocks.

Quoting EricR (Reply 5):
Natural gas seems to be the next big forefront in the green energy space as it is a much cleaner burning fuel. My opinion is that stocks with heavy concentrations in natural gas could be the next to benefit. In my opinion, the remainder of the green energy field is too speculative at the moment.

Natural gas is not green, especially not the shale kind that is so polluting and dangerous it's illegal to extract it in France !

Quoting mt99 (Reply 14):
You would get a bigger bang from your subsided AUS$ if the gov would subsidize utility scale PV installations rather than tiny ones. Usually you see economies of scale starting to hit at about 15MW

It may be true, but making people put panels on their homes is still a good thing I think, for several reasons. It doesn't take any space, doesn't use land that could be a field or a forest, it creates jobs (even with Chinese panels, they need to be installed), it makes people take action to reduce their electric usage (especially if the panels power the home first). There is also the benefit of not having to install any infrastructure.

I think the problem is mainly that the drop in panel prices wasn't anticipated by anybody, so the incentives were too high and for too long (I think in France it is 60 cents till 2020 for first adopters when a "nuclear" KWh is between 9 and 13 cents on the bill !).

As for nuclear being the future, well, not with NIMBYs (and I'm one of them on that front). And of course, it's only green if you overlook the nuclear waste (that nobody wants in their backyard either) and the risks.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
EricR
Posts: 1226
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:15 pm

RE: Green Stocks Not So Green?

Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:26 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 25):
Quoting EricR (Reply 5):
Natural gas seems to be the next big forefront in the green energy space as it is a much cleaner burning fuel. My opinion is that stocks with heavy concentrations in natural gas could be the next to benefit. In my opinion, the remainder of the green energy field is too speculative at the moment.

Natural gas is not green,


It may not be green in the sense that it emits no pollution, however, it does not have the same damaging effects as some types of energy such as coal.

Quite honestly, a lot of green solutions are not truly green. Wind farms, while a green energy source, still has the drawbacks of building unsightly wind turbines. Hydro-electric sources of energy have environmental impacts as a result of flooding previously dry land behind the dams. Solar panels are not "green" either as they are a man made item with a lot of byproducts resulting from the production (and replacement) of these panels.

Green solutions are nothing more than alternatives to existing sources of energy, both of which have negative impacts to the environment. They just impact the environment in different ways. It is false to assume that "Green" sources of energy have no negative impacts to the environment.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 25):
especially not the shale kind that is so polluting and dangerous it's illegal to extract it in France !


I do not consider the "French" government's opinion as a voice of reason on any issue.
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Green Stocks Not So Green?

Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:36 pm

Quoting EricR (Reply 26):
Quite honestly, a lot of green solutions are not truly green. Wind farms, while a green energy source, still has the drawbacks of building unsightly wind turbines

And coal plants are beautiful?
Step into my office, baby
 
EricR
Posts: 1226
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:15 pm

RE: Green Stocks Not So Green?

Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:33 pm

Quoting mt99 (Reply 27):
And coal plants are beautiful?

Did I say they were?
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7155
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Green Stocks Not So Green?

Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:42 am

Quoting EricR (Reply 28):
Quoting mt99 (Reply 27):
And coal plants are beautiful?

Did I say they were?

Some are more beautiful than others. It depends on the architect.

But they take up a hundred times less space than wind turbines, and make less noise. In addition they produce power even in the dark, in calm weather, or even when the Russians shut down the natural gas pipelines.

They won't go out of fashion that easily.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: IgorD and 23 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos