Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Rande Is . . . HOME -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rande Is who wrote (49878)	3/28/2001 9:28:03 AM
From: manny t	Respond to of 57584

MLNM, UBS Warburg starts Milleneum Pharma at BUY. DJ news 8:53 Manny T.

To: Rande Is who wrote (49878)	3/28/2001 11:07:37 AM
From: CAPTAIN MORGAN	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 57584

Munder has a brand new fund concentrated in this area, an alternative for easy diversification. munder.com

To: Rande Is who wrote (49878)	3/28/2001 1:53:20 PM
From: duke-nukem	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57584

The rate hike seems absurd in a vacuum, but this is what happens when you put caps on what the energy companies can charge consumers for a number of years, forcing the power companies to sell electricity for less than it costs them. If this had been a 3%-4% rate increase a year for the last ten years, it wouldn't look so awful. When the population increases as much as CA has the past decade, with the requisite increase in engergy demands, while simultaneously preventing any new power plants of any type from being built, you finally run headlong into what could have been a preventable crisis. To go along with this, the atitude of the consumers in California has been a little irritating. When informed that the cap on rates was finally going away, quite a few stated that they wouldn't pay, instead merely sending in the amount that they were used to sending. The desire to receive something for nothing ran squarely into supply versus demand. That said, I'm firmly behind the fule cell technology, and look forward to it being available residentially. I'm merely pointing out that these prices increases are artificially inflated due to many years of zero percent increases, along with increased demand. Truthfully, I shudder to think about what kind of outages will occur on the left coast come summertime.

To: Rande Is who wrote (49878)	3/28/2001 2:00:51 PM
From: WhatsUpWithThat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 57584

Let's see now, Plug Power's Home Gen 7000, which looks just like a residential air conditioner is slated to cost between $5000 and $7000. So many people could easily pay for the whole system with a single year's worth of electric bill savings. Just furthering the discussion, it's worth noting some qualifiers. I believe long term in these systems; many many advantages. It's just, like many things, it's not a smooth road from here to there. Payback Fuel cells create power by consuming fuel, so you have to factor the cost of fuel into your payback period. Don't know what this would be; I don't immediately see an indication of consumption rate/kwH on their site. If the fuel is NG, that's in a price squeeze already without added consumption, no? What's the system life of an FC; as an owner how much would I have to factor in for replacement? With any critical system you need to have an immediate response support contract so that in the event of a problem with your FC you don't end up with no power at all for long periods. Will require immense support infrastructure and you have to factor such a contract into the cost of your fuel cell. With computer servers you typically look at 15-18% of capital cost per year; though I wouldn't extend this directly, it may give some idea of the cost of critical level support on other types of systems? Your year payback was based on the peak elec costs, but should be of course on an average in a year. The point is still very strong, of course, because I'd think a two-year payback would still be very attractive (though for early adopters it would have to be very quick, as capital costs and technologies would I imagine change very quickly in the early stages of adoption) Distribution Natural gas, propane or methanol fuels need a distribution network to make this work. Many homes have NG, but still many millions don't. If it's not pipes to the home they need to build a really big home tank-and-truck distribution, and that distribution network, regardless of what it looks like, has to be factored into the costs as well. Notwithstanding, I'm sure these or similar arguments would be thrown up against the coming of electricity if we were just looking at that right now <gg>. Problems get beat if there's the will and the need. As I say, I only raise them as illustration of some of the significant issues that will have to be resolved. Thanks for your FC overview. Regards WUWT

To: Rande Is who wrote (49878)	5/21/2001 1:21:52 PM
From: James C. Mc Gowan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57584

Rande and thread: California Energy Crisis Here's a link to a SF Chronicle investigative report published Sunday 5/20/01. sfgate.com It appears that the flow of electric energy to California by out of state energy producers is "variable" depending upon spot prices intraday. Looks like George W.'s boyz in Houston are getting into daytrading, but they have mucho control over prices. Can we profit often on Reliant/Dynegy/Duke, before the fraud lawsuits roll out? ng Also, saw Securities Industry Association mouthpiece on CNBS last week, talking about FD reg; says small investors were victimized by FD, it caused volatility in the markets. Hoped for Bush's new SEC man, Pitt? to "correct" this problem, and restore order to the markets. Good luck small investors, you're going to need it. Regards, James