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.

Politics : Welcome to Slider's Dugout -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (451)	8/22/2005 3:22:17 PM
From: philv	Respond to of 50653

Alternative energy: I was impressed with the numbers associated with wind power. They are huge, and a recent headline regarding Spain caught my eye. A typical nuclear power plant produces about 1000 MW of power. Europe has made a big investment in wind power. Here is an article I found, written about a year ago regarding Spain and Germany. Spain wants to substitute her nuclear generation for wind. energybulletin.net If this doesn't peak your interest, it is just real good read and important general knowledge. Seems like a real viable alternative to conventional electrical generation. ewea.org

To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (451)	8/22/2005 3:33:53 PM
From: Frank Pembleton	Respond to of 50653

Hey Slide... and this inane battle ensued... ...never bothered to read through it all-- whenever I get really bored I like logging into SI just to check the ban lists of the major bear threads ... I like keeping tabs on what the children are up to <vbg> but reading their points of view gives me a headache. ...anyway, about newsletters: The only newsletter I was subscribing to that was worth anything was Canadian Energy Viewpoint-- in fact, the author was so good that he ended the letter and started managing a hedge fund for himself. As for publications, I like both Valueline and IBD-- I could run a $100 million on my own with just those two services-- a must have for any serious investor. ...about alternative energy-- I think it's a waste, don't forget I'm Canadian and Ballard Power is still newsworthy up here (and it shouldn't be). But if you mean alternative energy as in uranium mining, then I'm there in a big way. ...of course I'm a trader, I did sell most of what I had at the February peak-- and then bought everything back in mid-May (note the date of the post) investorshub.com I still really like these stocks, specifically International Uranium, which is IMO is going parabolic here shortly-- take a position now if you don't already have one. I'm still very long on these stocks and intend on being long for quite some time to come. ...as for gold, here's where we differ: investorshub.com I like gold, I like it a lot-- I also like the fact that most super-bears/gold permabulls are bearish on gold stocks because of last week's CoT report ... since when do we compare apples (stocks) with oranges (futures)...? <vbg> I also trade currencies and regularly comment on them. investorshub.com Anyway, it's nice talking with you again-- I've bookmarked the thread, and I'm sure you'll hear from me again, especially if I disagree with what you're saying. <vbg>

To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (451)	8/24/2005 11:15:56 PM
From: Fun-da-Mental#1	Respond to of 50653

ideas/comments on alternative energy: LNG: sure, it's happening, but held back by the "not in my backyard" syndrome - nobody wants new facilities near them - second only to nuclear as a potential disaster. Ethanol: okay up to a point, but to actually replace gasoline would take way too much farmland. Biodiesel: Yes, this can work, but only by using the new method of producing it from algae, and this method is very new, not commercialized yet at any size. Land plants are way too inefficient for really large scale production. For ethanol you can use most of the plant, but for bio-diesel you can only use the oil in the seeds, which is maybe like 1% of the biomass. Solar: again okay up to a point, but to actually replace fossil fuels you run into four problems: 1) real estate 2) climate - it has too be sunny - tough luck if you're too far north 3) weather - makes the supply unreliable. You'll always need other sources that you can turn on when it gets cloudy. 4) nighttime - it's fine for a homeowner to store solar electricity in batteries to use during the night, but imagine the size of the batteries you'd need to power the whole country overnight Wind power: same problem as solar - it's great when the weather cooperates, but what happens when the wind doesn't blow for a few days. That means solar and wind can only constitute a certain percentage of total power generation. What percentage? I don't know, maybe 20%? - because you don't want to be turning all your power plants on and off on a daily basis - they can't operate like that. Geothermal: This may have a lot of potential. Unlike solar and wind, it's reliable: pump cold water down, get hot water up, 24/7. The nation of Iceland runs almost entirely off geothermal electricity. Tidal power: There's a lot of power potentially there, but the initial investment is huge, plus imagine how unpopular it would be from an environmental point of view to be damming up large sections of coastline. Hydroelectric (damming rivers): Not much growth potential - Most of the available sources are already being used, or are environmentally protected. Nuclear: We have the technology... Coal: Cheap and abundant! You can even make gasoline out of it! Tar sands: The way of the future. But that doesn't mean it's a good investment. The limiting factor is how fast they can build new facilities. It takes many years, and the plans are public, so the growth forecast is pretty much fixed, and already discounted in the stock price, at least for the obvious players. Maybe buying real estate in Fort McMurray, Alberta is the way to play this. Fuel cells: Yes, this has potential, but don't forget - unlike all the other things listed here, FUEL CELLS ARE NOT A SOURCE OF ENERGY. They are just an efficient and clean way of converting energy from one form (chemical) to another (electrical). You still need to get the hydrogen fuel from somewhere. There are two ways of doing this: 1) You run an electrical current through water, to electrolyse it into hydrogen and oxygen. Then you bottle the hydrogen and distribute it for use in fuel cells, where it is converted back into electricity. It's just like a battery. The electricity to charge it has to come from some other energy source. 2) You use fossil fuels which contain hydrogen, for example natural gas. You break it down into hydrogen and carbon, run the fuel cell off the hydrogen, and normally the carbon is released in the form of carbon dioxide. It's just like burning natural gas, except it's somewhat more efficient and cleaner. Of these two methods the first is ridiculous, you might as well just use batteries. That writes off companies like Ballard and Plug Power. The second method has merit, it is the most efficient method of using fossil fuels, especially when coupled with a turbine to use the waste heat. Fuel Cell Energy (FCEL) specializes in this, so I expect eventually they'll take off, although the commercialization process seems to be slow. Also solid oxide fuel cells (like from Global Thermoelectric) are a good way to produce electrical power for vehicles - from fossil fuels, not hydrogen.