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.

Technology Stocks : Ballard Power -world leader zero-emission PEM fuel cells -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sid Turtlman who wrote (2475)	4/29/1998 9:41:00 AM
From: smw3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5827

Sid, Bought any RAM lately? I have 80MB in my computer, and it cost me less than $150. Just two years ago that same RAM (actually RAM not as good as what I've got) would have cost several times as much. You don't have to go back too far in time and there was an order of magnitude difference in both the price and the quality. Silicon based technologies, when allowed to, get dramatically cheaper over time, even as they get better. You note that there was intense interest in solar technologies in 1978-79, but that it virtually dried up for 20 years. Gee, can we think of any reasons why? Here's two: oil companies (ARCO in particular) seized control of the most promising PV companies and thus were able to maintain the cost of PV power high relative to the product they bank on; and the US tossed out every single incentive that had ever existed to do anything in an environmentally conscientious fashion when they elected Reagan. That R&D money dried up overnight. Well you've got to admit that things are a little different now. We'd never even heard of global warming when Carter was the big guy. The drive for solar power then was based strictly on efficiency an air quality issues. The impetus in our culture to make some changes, to address the potential fouling of our nest for which we alone are responsible, is reemerging now. The DOE and many state energy agencies are making available millions of dollars in seed money for RD&D to develop new technologies and help make good but expensive technologies more competitive. The California Energy Commission's Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) program is awarding $62 million per year for the next four years for energy efficiency, advanced generation, and renewable fuels RD&D projects (this program is funded completely by money collected from utilities specifically to offset the externalities of the way they've traditionally carried out business). The DOE is soon to publish the RFP for the fourth consecutive year of over 100 grants subsidizing up to a third of the capital cost for ONSI's PC25 200kW PAFC. There is much more momentum in this direction generally than there was 20 years ago, the public is much more aware qualitatively and quantitatively that our path must change, and even should the current administration go down in flames and be replaced by the some newt guy, it's not likely that we'll regress quite as we did the last time around. The costs to defend oil are not the only externalities associated with dependence on it as a primary energy supply. It's filthy, from beginning to end. You ever get that stuff on you? It doesn't just rinse right off, you know? Do you debate whether smog, acid rain, and global climate change as a result of our energy use are now or will ever be problems with which we must deal? I contend that they are, and will continue to be at an increasing rate should we not change our path. I would further argue that the majority of people agree, though at this point they might not yet know how we are to change. More and more of them are starting to realize it won't be long before they're driving fuel cell cars. I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying your global free trade zone fantasy. Even if governments went for it, where are these $2 a barrel bottomless oil reserves? I've seen data indicating that we've already crested in our ability to extract more oil each year than the last, indicating that production will inevitably decrease while costs go up. Do you promote offshore drilling? I know people who will defend to the death the oceans that would be destroyed if oil companies were given free reign to do that. We have one of the most conservative Republican congressmen in the House representing the coastal district I live in, and he's got a circle-slash-offshore oil rig bumpersticker on his car. You don't think there might end up being some external costs associated with protecting those practices from the monkeywrenching threat of an increasingly agitated global populace? Young or old, time is dynamic, and the rate at which things change in the era of technology is increasing at an exponential rate. Almost every argument you make is based on a static economy and no provisions for innovation. Given incentives such as those now available, opportunities exist allowing enterprising people to develop larger and larger renewable power systems that are not only affordable but profitable. Perhaps the simple payback time for a solar hydrogen refueling station in $/kW will still be twice that for the first cost of other more conventional means, but I repeat my initial argument: Those PV's will easily outlive their payback period, after which the net cost per kW of energy produced is essentially zero. How soon can your deregulated global economy get oil cheap enough to do that?

To: Sid Turtlman who wrote (2475)	4/29/1998 10:02:00 AM
From: yard_man	Respond to of 5827

Sid & smw3 & others, Enjoying the conversation. Like it also when references are supplied. The politics of energy which you all have been discussing is a little is interesting. California has always been on the bleeding edge -- first with its early and rapid embrace of "alternative" energy sources and currently, with electricity deregulation. Does anybody else find it ironic that California's early embrace of some of these technologies is actually what has resulted in it having some of the highest rates and spurred the move to deregulation (read that re-regulation)? A pertinent question for the next 5 - 10 years is what will the socio-political climate allow in terms of incorporating so-called externalities into the price of energy? Is the move to competition antithetical to the incorporation of such externalities? smw3 mentioned the price of gasoline being artificially low in the US as opposed to Europe. Is a large part of the difference due to taxes? In the past alternative energy resources have received tax credits. This works to spur the development and/or small scale adoption of technologies which are "almost" competitive at the margin for some applications, e.g. wind. However, where there is a great disparity in the cost of power between a conventional resource and an alternative, it isn't sufficient to reduce the tax to zero to spur adoption. I guess the question is: To what extent should our government go to to ensure that alternative energy technologies are developed past the point of "proof-of-principle?"

To: Sid Turtlman who wrote (2475)	4/30/1998 7:53:00 AM
From: michael a. rowe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5827

<<<In that event, what would the price of oil be? About $3 per barrel in current terms. Why? Because the actual cost of finding more oil in the lowest cost locations is about $2 per barrel. In a world without governments all the oil would come from the lowest cost locations, just as all commodities do, and the costs are very low in places with huge reserves. The only reason that oil is $16 a barrel now is that the OPEC cartel artificially restricts supply.>>> I hope everybody read this statement that you made....its absolutely incredible!!! Your not even beginning to look at the actual costs invovled in producing and using oil. This just makes no sense at all to me. mike