# Global warming - Best Companies



## billhill (7 October 2006)

Hi Guys,
           With the increased awareness of global warming in the last couple of years and the acknoledgement by governments that it actually exist i thought it would be interesting to have a discussion on the companies that may benefit the most due to possible changes in the climate and carbon legislation. Any ideas?

Billhill


----------



## scsl (7 October 2006)

billhill said:
			
		

> Hi Guys,
> With the increased awareness of global warming in the last couple of years and the acknoledgement by governments that it actually exist i thought it would be interesting to have a discussion on the companies that may benefit the most due to possible changes in the climate and carbon legislation. Any ideas?
> 
> Billhill



Uranium producing companies maybe?

The fact that what they sell produces hardly any pollution when it is being used up is definately an advantage.


----------



## YChromozome (7 October 2006)

I’ve been thinking the same thing. Not only is governments changing their tunes, Insurance Companies have been investing big, and people like Richard Branson who has pledged $3 billion to tackle global warming goes to strengthen the cause. My favorite renewable energy stock would have been Pacific Hydro, but they were brought out by super fund, IFM and delisted. Even the super funds want a piece of the action.

The Federal Government is also due to announce the first round of LETDF (Lower Emissions Technology Development Fund) funding any day now . .  

Here are just some potentials ASX listed companies (in no real order) : 

Hot Fractured/Dry Rock :

GDY : Geodynamics (http://www.geodynamics.com.au)
PTR: Petratherm (http://www.petratherm.com.au/)
GRK: Green Rock Energy (http://www.greenrock.com.au/)
GHT: Geothermal Resources (http://www.geothermal-resources.com.au/)
EDE: Eden Energy (http://www.edenenergy.com.au/)

The government is looking for a technology which produces the least greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time will not be detrimental to the economy, i.e. increase wholesale power prices too much. HDR has a huge potential in that it can produce zero emissions, base load electricity at costs modeled to be close to coal. The technology works, just the economics need to be proven. 

Eden energy is slightly different to the above five companies. While they hold Geothermal exploration licenses, they are also making big waves in Hythane technology. It’s a blend of CNG Compressed Natural Gas and Hydrogen for use as a transport fuel. They have recently won the backing of the US department of energy for some tests, and I also believe there was talk at some stage about converting many (1000’s) of the buses over ready for the Beijing Olympics.

EVM: Enviromission (http://www.enviromission.com.au)

Enviromission is working on building solar towers. 

QTM: Quantum Energy (http://www.quantum-energy.com.au)

Quantum Energy build Heat Pump Hot water systems. They use reverse cycle refrigerant technology like your reverse cycle air conditioner to heat water. The idea is much more efficient than traditional thermal hot water systems. The Government also loves these things. I could be wrong, But I think the Australian Government is the only government I know of that gives REC (Renewable Energy Certificates – a sort of Carbon Credit) away for a Hot Water System that runs on Electricity (Coal, Gas etc)

CFU: Ceramic Fuel Cell Limited  (http://www.cfcl.com.au/)

Ceramic Fuel Cells as it’s name suggests makes Solid Oxide Fuel Cells than run on Natural Gas. Like Quantum Energy, the idea is better efficiency. The unit can generate electricity more efficient than most efficient Combined Cycle Gas Turbine technology and on top of this will heat your water for free. Ceramic Fuel Cells is building a manufacturing plant in the UK. The UK and Europe fancy the technology which instead of heading water, can heat the home and generate electricity too.

ZBB: ZBB Energy Corporation 

ZBB makes big (~1 Megawatt) Zinc Bromine Batteries. They can be used in areas like storage for intermittent renewable energy sources (Wind, Solar etc)

DYE : Dyesol Ltd 
Dyesol makes Dye based solar cells.

CNM : Carnegie Corporation.
Carnegie is a small venture capitalist which has developed devices like CETO. CETO is a pump that sits under the water level and uses the wave action to pump highly pressurized water to shore. On the shore it can be converted to electricity more cheaply than marine qualified plant, but the highly pressurized water is idea for reverse osmosis desalination. The best thing is you don’t need capital costs of electric pumps or ongoing costs such as electricity. CETO was developed between Pacific Hydro and CNM, but has since been sold to UK based Renewable Energy Holdings (REH). In return CNM now owns shares in REH.

Carnegie are now working on a smallish low emissions coal technology. 

ASX: BBW Babcock & Brown Wind Partners
As the name suggests, they invest in various wind farms and other renewable energy.

ASX:ENE (http://www.energydevelopments.com.au)
Has a portfolio of landfill gas power generation facilities. 


Many are speculative. My money is on GDY.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 October 2006)

It's a complex issue but as far as investment is concerned it seems to be limited to energy and possibly biotech if someone can come up with a viable means of reducing agricultural (methane from animals and rice growing, oxides of nitrogen from fertilizer use) emissions.

I'll stick to energy for this post since I don't have much knowledge in the area of biotech.

One problem is that to a significant extent the companies concerned are either a minor part of a bigger company or are government owned.

The dominant (presently over half of the entire industry) generator of renewable electricity in Australia is the Hydro-Electric Corporation (branded as Hydro Tasmania (HT)). It also has operations in China (wind power) and a global consulting business in power, water, civil engineering, cloud seeding etc. A $10 billion+ business in terms of what its assets would cost to replace with 2006 dollars. But it's 100% owned by the Tasmanian Government so it's not an option for investment.

The second largest renewable energy generator, Snowy Hydro, is also 100% owned by 3 governments so again it's not an option for investment. That said, the actual business focus of Snowy Hydro is more to do with financial trading than actual power generation (though it does generate power too).

So investing in renewable energy supplied to the grid means either investing in companies that are presently relatively small producers or have no production at all. They have a viable future for expansion ONLY with either a change in Australian government policy or by setting up overseas operations (hence HT's move into China). 

That's not to say there aren't opportunities, there are, but you can't just go and by the shares of the dominant renewable electricity generators and hope they go up because they aren't listed companies. Another post on this thread has given a reasonable list of the relevant companies so I won't repeat that.

Then there are the non-grid renewables - eg solar hot water systems manufactured by SolaHart and competitors. But again, to a significant extent the companies are also involved in other activies. The world's largest manufactuer of solar panels (for electricity, not hot water) is BP, as in the oil company.

It's much the same with energy conservation too. CSR is a major manufacturer of insulation for buildings but that is by no means it's main line of business.

There are certainly quite a few companies that are listed and have a promising future. But in general you're buying into juniors which may or may not deliver on their promises

Even Uranium is much the same. Either it's a small part of a bigger company or it's a junior that is yet to go into production and may never do so. With only 3 mines operating there isn't a lot of choice amongst the existing producers.

So basically it's a case of getting in at the ground floor and trying to pick the right stocks. Just like buying computer stocks in the 1980's - if you chose Microsoft and held it long enough then you did pretty well but many others simply disappeared altogether.

Carbon capture and underground storage is another one. But it's only a tiny part of Rio Tinto's activities and you can't buy stock at all in some of those involved (Queensland Government). 

One area which stands out is natural gas. I disagree strongly with the popular notion that using more gas is a real solution to global warming (it still pollutes and there simply isn't enough to replace more than a relatively small portion of coal use over the long term).

But gas companies are here and now and for the next few years at least stand to benefit from a shift towards gas, particularly for power generation. Major transmission pipeline owners and upstream gas producers are well placed in this regard. The upstream industry also stands to benefit as gas replaces some oil use in the coming years.

All that said, if I were going to buy a "hold and hope" stock in this sector then I would be looking very seriously at geothermal energy (hot dry rocks). If they can get the cost down then it's the only serious alternative to coal/nuclear over the next few decades and would logically be a major beneficiary of any real move away from coal (unless political considerations lead to nuclear being the winner regardless of cost).


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 October 2006)

YChromozome said:
			
		

> QTM: Quantum Energy (http://www.quantum-energy.com.au)
> 
> Quantum Energy build Heat Pump Hot water systems. They use reverse cycle refrigerant technology like your reverse cycle air conditioner to heat water. The idea is much more efficient than traditional thermal hot water systems. The Government also loves these things. I could be wrong, But I think the Australian Government is the only government I know of that gives REC (Renewable Energy Certificates – a sort of Carbon Credit) away for a Hot Water System that runs on Electricity (Coal, Gas etc)
> 
> ...



Quantum - the efficiency of the units is so high (typically 300 - 500% from electricity in to hot water out) that they use less energy than a solar hot water heater in cooler climates (eg Vic, Tas). That's because they don't depend on sunshine but on heat from the air. These things will even heat up (without any kind of booster) in the middle of the night when it's zero degrees outside. 

Energy Developments - the case for landfill gas capture and use is in many cases environmental rather than economic. So if there is serious concern in the community then it's quite likely that local government will start PAYING the likes of ENE to get rid of gas from their landfills. Unburnt methane from landfills is a potent greenhouse gas - using it to generate electricity having the dual benefit of converting the gas to carbon dioxide (still a greenhouse gas but far less potent than methane) whilst also reducing the use of coal etc for power generation.


----------



## billhill (7 October 2006)

What about the timber companies like gunns and great southern plantations. If a price is put on carbon just owning large areas of forest that suck it up could provide huge revenue streams to a company. 

I agree with the comments above that at the moment the biggest potential is in alternative energy but if governments deem it necessary to reverse the effects of global warming via carbon credits we could see a whole new industry dedicated simply to caputring and storing carbon dioxide. 

Billhill


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 October 2006)

billhill said:
			
		

> What about the timber companies like gunns and great southern plantations. If a price is put on carbon just owning large areas of forest that suck it up could provide huge revenue streams to a company.
> 
> I agree with the comments above that at the moment the biggest potential is in alternative energy but if governments deem it necessary to reverse the effects of global warming via carbon credits we could see a whole new industry dedicated simply to caputring and storing carbon dioxide.
> 
> Billhill



There are practical limits to storing carbon in forests but agreed that it could turn out to be a profitable investment opportunity if the required policies were to be implemented by governments.

As for the practical limit bit, I'll put it this way. 250 years ago virtually all the coal and all the oil and gas was in the ground and most of the now cleared areas were covered by forest. To reverse the effects of global warming we would not only have to put trees back where they used to be but also plant enough extra trees to take up all the carbon we've taken from the ground (coal, oil, gas). That would mean an incredible number of trees and necessarily a major downturn in agriculture globally. If we continued to burn fossil fuels then we'd have to keep increasing the number of trees and before long we'd run out of land to put them on.

I'm not saying that planting trees isn't a good idea, it is, but I just wanted to point out that doing so is by no means a total solution to global warming.

All that said, if you build with timber (instead of steel) then you've effectively locked up carbon in that timber for the life of the building (assuming that more trees are planted to replace the ones cut down for timber). Given that making steel is a major polluter, there's a lot in favour of building with wood. 

On the other hand, it's hard to meet high energy efficiency standards with timber construction, especially when it's used for more than just the frame. One of the many complexities surrounding global warming which makes many aparent "solutions" not as effective as they may seem. 

That air-conditioning cuts emissions when installed in Victoria or Tasmania by a huge amount (generally the single most important thing a householder can do to cut emissions in a cool climate) but increases emissions if installed in Queensland (due to the different way it will likely be used due to climate) being another example.

Another one is that catching an already running bus to work will save emissions. True. But then if _nobody_ used buses and we stopped running them, using small cars instead, that would actually reduce emissions (since on average most buses run with very few passengers over the total length of the route).

Another one is that using electronic mail and similar technologies will cut transport emissions. Absolutely true. But then add in the power to run the computer and all the extra paper use they tend to create (you would never have typed out, on a manual typewriter, most of the stuff that gets printed in the average office) and it's not so clear if they are really winners at all. And of course manual typewriters generally weren't replaced every 3 years creating a mountain of landfill.

Then there's the efficiency paradox. Make it more efficient and consumption tends to rise rather than fall. For example, I'm told that houses with continuous flow gas water heaters (themselves far more efficient than other types except solar) tend to use about 45% more hot water than houses with less efficient water heaters. They still save a bit, but not as much as a simple evaluation of competing technologies would suggest. 

Another one is lighting - each 2x36 watt fluoro in the office is putting out the same light as 10 x 60 watt bulbs. You may have 20 of these fluoros in the office but I very much doubt that you would have installed 200 bulbs in the same room if fluoro's didn't exist. For that matter, each of those halogen downlights at home is using about 60 watts (50 watts for the bulb, the rest for the transformer). You put 6 of them in the kitchen and have some nice bright lighting but I doubt you would have had 6 ordinary bulbs there before the downlights went in. 

Things get more efficient and consumption goes up rather than down. Just something I've observed in the electrical industry for quite some time. A bigger problem however is when appliances get cheap - we all survived perfectly well with one fridge per house or office. Now they're cheap and we end up with two fridges at home, another one at work plus another one in the boss' office and a water cooler or two as well. All adding more emissions.

I could also point out that per head of population we're using just as much petrol as we ever did despite all the improvements in engine technology. The net effect of fuel injection was... basically nothing. A more efficient engine so we put it in a less efficient vehicle and have more of them.

Hence my belief that alternative energy production is the only thing that can really solve the greenhouse problem. Conservation and efficiency could help slow emissions growth a bit but in practice I just can't see total energy demand going down in a world with an economic system based on constant growth.


----------



## billhill (7 October 2006)

Smurf1976,
               Totally agree that energy consumption is going to continue to grow at an exponetial rate and that alternative energy sources are the best bet to solve the problem. Also acknowledge that effeciency is only a small part of the solution if any.

There are however more options then meet the eye. For example if it becomes viable for a company to capture and store carbon, as they say there is more then one way to skin a cat. You don't need trees to capture carbon. You could build huge algae ponds that suck up the carbon from the air then store the organic matter underground where it cannot escape. This would require much less land then planting forests and although a theory at the moment could have significant potential. 

Another theory put forward sounds pretty far fetched but bare with me because if the climate changes dramatically it wouldn't sound so stupid. Basically it involves flying planes into the stratoshpere and releasing sulfur particles that reflect heat from passing into the lower atmosphere and heating the earth (actually after september 11 the average temp in america raised a few degrees while all planes were grounded. Studies showed that the polution from the exhausts did exactly what is proposed above). Companies will be required to carry out these services for governments and being such a massive opperation will be worth millions (whats the bet Haliburton gets all the contracts   ). 

Gobal warming poses more problems and hence opportunities then just the warming of the earth or alternate energy supplies. We need to think out of the box on this one which is why i started this thread.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 October 2006)

It's worth noting that if you compare sulphur emissions (SO2, SO3) and temperature in the industrialised world then there is an inverse correlation. Temperature fell as sulphur emissions rose but since the mid-1970's when serious efforts were made to reduce sulphur emissions (since it causes acid rain both locally and further away) temperature has reversed trend and is now rising.

Also interesting that the observed "effects of global warming" generally seem to date back to the mid-1970's too.


----------



## billhill (8 October 2006)

Just adding to the discussion, water is already presenting as a large problem for governments and global warming is likely to exacerbate this. 

Currently water infrastructure and services are by and large owned by the government but i have found these two companies serving water storage and treatment solutions. Both are very small companies and do not have websites.

Envirozel limited (EVZ) - Development and commercialisation of water treatment and recycling, instalation  of water siphoning for buildings and production of storage tanks for water and petrochemicals. Company is actually making a profit.

Environmental solutions international limited (ESI) - Water and waste water treatment and services. Currently making a loss.

Not a hell of a lot of information on these companies so hard to say what the potential is but probably worth keeping an eye on them. EVZ looks the better of the two at the moment.


----------



## SilverDollar (24 October 2006)

*Water*

_
Envirozel limited (EVZ) - Development and commercialisation of water treatment and recycling, instalation of water siphoning for buildings and production of storage tanks for water and petrochemicals. Company is actually making a profit._

Thanks for the heads up on those two companies Bill.

I have just got back from a trip to Oz. Water seems to be bigger problem in parts of Oz than I realized. Water recycling companies I imagine will do well in the future. What are your thoughts?

Web Site Link.
http://www.envirozel.com/

I will watch this stock and the water indusrty also.


----------



## Nick Radge (24 October 2006)

Great thread.


----------



## BSD (24 October 2006)

EZL 

Good to see a company where the directors actually pay cash on-market for accumulating their shares.

Even better seeing them all tucking them into the superfunds for the expected capital gains. 


A profitable business, current PE of 17, with a cap of only $36m - expecting to double revenue next year to $32m looks attractive to me. 

Anyone hold this one with more insights?


----------



## billhill (24 October 2006)

SilverDollar said:
			
		

> I have just got back from a trip to Oz. Water seems to be bigger problem in parts of Oz than I realized. Water recycling companies I imagine will do well in the future. What are your thoughts?




Yeah i like the company. The only thing i would be wary of in terms of water is the public resistance to corporate control of water. As long as companies do not add costs to water then they should do very well and those that provide effeciency improvements and solutions are an even better bet.

They continue to predict falling rainfall in the zones where all our major cities are. Its unlikely they will move the cities so that leaves companies like EVZ with a huge customer base and likely favourable legislature changes.


----------



## Ken (24 October 2006)

cummins corp would be flying if their directors didnt leave.

seriously disappointing float.

any danger of some updates!!!


----------



## nioka (24 October 2006)

LKO & VPE have each taken a 33% interest in Green Earth Energy Ltd. A company formed to investigate thermal drilling in Victoria.They have applied for leases. Something I have put on the back burner for future reference. Could be interesting.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 October 2006)

At some point I think we're going to see quite a lot of investment in water. Recycling probably. Major new supply sources probably (conservation only goes so far when the supply from existing sources is falling and population rising).

Whilst this is likely to be either directly publicly funded (especially recycling) or indirectly via contracts for public utilities to purchase the water, I think much of the physical work is likely to be undertaken by the private sector.

Public utilities just don't have huge construction workforces anymore and they also lack the equipment to do the work. Even in Tasmania, the Hydro no longer has a construction workforce of any significance (apart from maintenance) and sold off virtually all construction machinery over a decade ago. They simply don't have the internal resouces to build even a small new dam.

Even on the design / engineering side it's much the same. Tasmania kept the engineers by going into the international consulting business but to my understanding they are long gone practically everywhere else (I think Snowy Hydro might still have some capabilities in this area too?). We just haven't been building large scale supply infrastructure in recent years and thus the people who know how to do it are in most cases no longer employed by the water utilities. Those that are still there would already be doing work on maintaining existing infrastructure, extending reticulation to new areas etc and wouldn't have time to be designing new dams or treatment plants.

Public utilities are basically operation and maintenance these days - they just don't do, CAN NOT do, large scale construction without a massive rebuilding of skills and equipment. Given the political climate and likely urgency of the situation when a decision on major new water supplies is finally made, odds are that it goes either largely or completely to the private sector to actually build whatever project is being built. Possibly to finance it as well. 

In the case of desalination, the state and local utilities never had knowledge in this area to start with so that's near certain to be private sector work. Desalination is, of course, the easiest and in some cases only realistic option for major new bulk water supplies. Either that or ship the stuff in from northern Australia or Tasmania. Which one comes down to politics and cost but either way it's likely to be done by private enterprise rather than government I think. I just can't see a fleet of government owned tankers when the customers, Vic and NSW, are keen on private enterprise doing most things and the likely supplier, Tasmania, just doesn't have the $ to invest in such a business beyond the upstream supply.

_Someone_ is going to do quite a bit of work at some point, on an ongoing basis if it's shipping water around, and presumably they'll make a decent profit doing so. Question is who and are they listed on the ASX?


----------



## billhill (24 October 2006)

Good point Smurf. I agree infrastructure is definately going to be one for the private sector. What will be interesting is if it is run and owned by the governments or the private sector. Supply of water is a touchy issue and for most people a god given right. Should private buisness be responsible for that i think there will be heavy regulation.


----------



## YChromozome (24 October 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> Desalination is, of course, the easiest and in some cases only realistic option for major new bulk water supplies. Either that or ship the stuff in from northern Australia or Tasmania. Which one comes down to politics and cost but either way it's likely to be done by private enterprise rather than government I think.




Yes, I think desalination is the way to go. No different to the renewable power (Electricity) market, the key is to find a way to reduce cost and increase the economics.

One of the problems with reverse osmosis desalination is the electricity it uses to pump highly pressurized sea water though the membrains. This extra electricity use is what everyone is kicking up a fuss about.

There has been some talk of using Wind power, but really by the time you put in the capital cost of wind turbines, power grids etc the costs blow out.

This is what I liked Carnegie Corporation so much for when they developed and owned Seapower Pacific (http://www.seapowerpacific.com/). 

Seapower had developed CETO which is a simple membrain pump that sits under sea level and uses wave power to pump highly pressurized sea water to shore. On shore it can be used to power cheaper non marine qualified turbines to generate electricity without the biofouling issues other players have. But better still the pressurized sea water can be injected into reverse osmosis membrains without the need of extra capital and operational costs such as electric pumps. What more the energy used is renewable.

This is running now at Rous Head harbour in Fremantle. There is photos on the seapowerpacific website if anyone is interested.

The disappointing thing now is Renewable Energy Holdings (http://www.reh-plc.com/) owns Sea Power Pacific. While they are listed on the AIM (AIM:REH), just wish they were still owned by Australian Listed Company ASX:CNM.

Carnegie Corp (ASX:CNM) indicates at http://www.carnegiecorp.com.au/technology/ceto.php
"Carnegie sold down its interest in Seapower Pacific to the UK listed Renewable Energy Holdings (AIM: REH) but remains a significant shareholder. Carnegie also retains a right of participation in future technology platform developments."

Carnegie has previously spun off technology it has invented, i.e. Pursuit Dynamics Plc (AIMDX) but had royalty entitlements. When Pacific Hydro and Carnegie owned Seapower Pacific, each party had entitlements on commercial plants, but there is no mention of this since the REH ownership.


----------



## 80s_guy (25 October 2006)

Does anyone know why Enviromission's price jumped so dramatically this morning.  Is it simple a reaction to Howards announcement of the $400mil solar plant.  As far as I can tell his announcment for a photovoltic based plant, not the solar tower. Don't know if they got a goverment grant or something but they havn't released any announcment themselves.

I've been holding evm for a while


----------



## billhill (25 October 2006)

80s_guy said:
			
		

> Does anyone know why Enviromission's price jumped so dramatically this morning. Is it simple a reaction to Howards announcement of the $400mil solar plant. As far as I can tell his announcment for a photovoltic based plant, not the solar tower. Don't know if they got a goverment grant or something but they havn't released any announcment themselves.




I'd say your right. Even if EVM don't see any government funding the fact the government is aiding the building of the worlds largest solar plant is a sign that attitudes are changing and their might be favourable legislation down the track.


----------



## YChromozome (2 November 2006)

It pays off to be seen as green - 1st November 2006

Renewable energy companies are poised for growth as Australian investors wise up to the economic implications of climate change and the increasing likelihood of carbon emission regulation. 

[snip]

Portfolio Partners manager of sustainablity Amanda McCluskey said *gas and LNG producers* would be the *first to benefit* from growing awareness of climate change whereas low carbon fuel producers and renewable energy producers would benefit over the medium to long term.

Ms McCluskey said companies such as AGL, Woodside, Origin Energy and Energy Developments would gain in a new low carbon framework whereas companies involved in metal smelting and building materials faced downside risk.

More speculative investments such as geothermal energy company Geodynamics and carbon offset firm CO2 Australia also offer long-term investment opportunities. 


Interesting. If Woodside owns 10.42% of Geodynamics & Origin owns 14.27% of Geodynamics then maybe they are a good place to start . . .


----------



## billhill (3 November 2006)

Actually if you check out Origin Energy's website they claim to provide 30% of australias grid connected Photovoltaic solar panels and they provide green choice electricity to consumers. Also are pretty heavily involved in gas.



			
				YChromozome said:
			
		

> Interesting. If Woodside owns 10.42% of Geodynamics & Origin owns 14.27% of Geodynamics then maybe they are a good place to start . . .




I think you may be on the money. Good diversified energy provider like origin certainly takes out a lot of the risk in investing in renewable energy.


----------



## Sean K (3 November 2006)

All the brown coal producers must be good for global warming.


----------



## Knobby22 (3 November 2006)

Icecream retailers


----------



## insider (6 November 2006)

I hear alot about global warming what about GLOBAL DIMMING?

What is global dimming?

Fossil fuel use, as well as producing greenhouse gases, creates other by-products. These by-products are also pollutants, such as sulphur dioxide, soot, and ash. These pollutants however, also change the properties of clouds.

Clouds are formed when water droplets are seeded by air-borne particles, such as pollen. Polluted air results in clouds with larger number of droplets than unpolluted clouds. This then makes those clouds more reflexsive. More of the sun's heat and energy is therefore reflected back into space.

This reduction of heat reaching the earth is known as Global Dimming.


----------



## insider (6 November 2006)

Here is a useful link to read up on GLOBAL DIMMING

http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming/globaldimming.asp#Healthandenvironmentaleffects


----------



## Rafa (6 November 2006)

insider said:
			
		

> Here is a useful link to read up on GLOBAL DIMMING
> 
> http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming/globaldimming.asp#Healthandenvironmentaleffects





I had heard of that before, but under the term Global Cooling...

Interestingly, as you said, the more crap we chuck up the, the harder for the suns rays to hit the surface.

To cut a long story shot, less radiation to vapoirise the oceans, hence less rainfall, and also a drop in temperatures...


End result... cold and dry!


Global warming and cooling are both side effect of pollution, how this will effect the long term balance of the ecosystem is anyones guess, but me thinks it won't be good.


----------



## billhill (6 November 2006)

Global cooling is becoming less and less relevant as time goes by. This is because fuel sources are largely being cleaned up of their global dimming polutants before they are burned eg new diesel fuel standards with low sulpher content. So essentially the ratio of global warming pollutants to global cooling pollutants is growing larger and hence global warming is likely to win out.


----------



## insider (6 November 2006)

I watched a documentary that said that in the past 100 years the sun is only 95 % as bright as it used to be... Not good for solar power


----------



## insider (6 November 2006)

Oh yeah in the same doco... the hottest days on record for those paricular days of the year were the three days after 9/11 when all jets were grounded... What happened? Those days were 1.2 degrees hotter than usual... Which is alot considering that al it was that made the difference were vapour trails of aircrafts... Global dimming is also preventing our planet from being a pressure cooker...


----------



## Dukey (6 November 2006)

insider said:
			
		

> Here is a useful link to read up on GLOBAL DIMMING
> 
> http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming/globaldimming.asp#Healthandenvironmentaleffects





My biology teacher was onto GLOBAL DIMMING 20+ years ago !! - she said it was happening because all the smart, well edumacated folks were only having one childrens, meanwhilst, all us dumbo's was having too many grommetts to count ??!!:horse:

------------------
NB* tongue firmly in cheek - no offense intended


----------



## insider (6 November 2006)

In one hundred years the average earth temperature will rise by 5 degrees.... WE'RE SCREWED


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 November 2006)

At some point we WILL stop burning fossil fuels simply because they are a limited resource.

You can debate when they will run out or if we will simply stop using them first (either due to technology making them obsolete or concern over the environmental effects giving us little choice even without an alternative).

Having done an awful lot of research into the subject, my personal expectation is that for oil we're damn close to peak production right now. I expect that to occur sometime this decade. Others differ but few put the date more than 25 years into the future and most agree it will be before 2020. In terms of time to prepare etc that's as good as being right now...

I would then expect oil production to have fallen to the point of being a trivial source of energy (compared to today) by 2075 and by 2100 it's likely to be pretty much over to the point that a child born 100 years from now will have trouble believing that oil was ever a major industry. Crude oil then will be like whale oil now - you know it exists but who on ASF personally buys whale oil? Or has EVER seen the stuff? Not many.

Gas isn't too much better. A peak in production sometime around 2030 - 2040 is my best guess and most seem to come up with similar dates. Some 2030, others 2050 but either way it's well within the lifetime of a child born today. With declining discovery and rapidly increasing production, espcially once it becomes the replacement for declining oil supply, the notion that "Australia has 100 years supply" will change awfully quickly. Indeed the plan to export 70%+ of our reserves has already changed the math rather drastically on that one. 

Factor in population growth and demand from China etc and per capita oil / gas availability in developed countries basically falls of a cliff. It becomes far more limited than most expect and does so rather quickly. We're talking about an 80% per capita fall in oil supply simply through China etc industrialising to Western levels. And that's without a fall in production.

As for coal, there's still plenty but again it is ultimately a limited resource. Factor in a few % annual growth in demand and the 200 year supply ends up being a production peak sometime later this century. And that's if we're brave enough to keep using the stuff (or find a way to keep the emissions out of the air).

So in 200 years time greenhouse gas emissions are near certain to be a LOT lower than today. That's the good bit. The downside is that emissions of particles etc causing global dimming will also be very much lower and that already emitted falls back to the ground pretty quickly. So no real effect from global dimming in 2200, but most of the greenhouse gases will still be in the air. We get the warming without the cooling - that's when the real trouble hits I would expect.

For that matter, we don't really know the full extent of the effects from greenhouse gases already emitted. Not only does it take time to have an impact but we still have the cooling effect from particles, sulphur dioxide etc. Stop burning coal, oil and gas literally today and there's still quite a bit of global warming "baked in the cake" that we're yet to feel the effects of.

Bottom line - we're going to have to live with warming no matter what we do now. All that we can change is the extent of it. And we're going to have to drastically cut the use of oil in little more than a generation with gas not far behind. We simply have no idea how to find enough of the stuff, even if it does exist somewhere, to carry on as we are. 

Personally, I think we'll end up pumping emissions from coal-fired power plants underground and the nuclear industry will greatly expand. There just isn't enough time for renewables to basically replace oil and gas whilst also doing away with coal and nuclear. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be developing renewables - to the contrary. It will take time to scale up and apply to mobile applications (aviation being by far the most difficult) and time is something we don't have too much of when it comes to energy supply.


----------



## billhill (6 November 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> Bottom line - we're going to have to live with warming no matter what we do now.




Speaking of heating up the place, what do you guys think of the prospects of this company. Hastie group (HST). They are australias leading climate control company and also provide services systems to the middle east. Any warming is gonna be good for these guys.


----------



## billhill (14 November 2006)

Johny Howard has announced today his support for a carbon trading sceme. ok its probably more a political move then actually a concern to reduce carbon emmisions but that at least puts the concept on the table. Wesfarmers CEO michael chaney who is currently heading the industry leaders was also in support of the idea. Looks like this issue is really starting to gain momentum. If this is implemented many of the afore mentioned companies are ideally placed. Bring it on.


----------



## billhill (15 November 2006)

Just though i would let people in on an interesting development i read about in todays paper. Here is an online source basically reporting the same thing.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20759711-2703,00.html
I thought this would eventually happen.


----------



## junmonkey (16 November 2006)

Hydrogen and Nuclear. Everything else churns out too much crap compared to the power it produces. 

Anyone read about the launch of the new exclusive 7 series Beemers? Runs for 200km on a hydrogen tank + 500km on a secondary petrol tank.


----------



## lancer (18 November 2006)

James Dines has the best uranium mining stock picks and if you read his theory on Global warming it makes perfect sense. I have owned his stocks in uranium for over a year and could not be happier, especially the last 2 months. Please read it!

Lance


----------



## billhill (21 November 2006)

Todays nuclear report announcement by the government has stirred up a bit of discussion on a few different threads. Now some people continue to claim that renewables cannot provide base load power. This in my opinion is ridiculous and small minded. OK so if i told you wind power could supply all the worlds energy demand 24hours a day 7days a week you would probably scoff but it can and this is the point i continually try to get across to people. Yes i'm probably preaching but i can't help myself  .

If we push the boundaries on all the renewables (wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, hydro, etc) we find that the solutions are within our grasp but people will say its too expensive. Well wind powers use to cost 5 times more in the late 1990's then what it does today. Cost are always coming down on these technologies and more clever efficient designs are developed. Below is a link to the future of wind energy and the companies that will make it a reality.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:High_Altitude_Wind_Power


----------



## bhiggins (25 November 2006)

Hi YChromozone,

Have been following your information on CNM. I have also been following this stock for sometime now and have built up a holding.

You mentioned a while back about CETO and the fact that it has been sold off to REH on the AIM n London - which is correct. As part of this deal they received some stock in REH and bought some more at the time of listing. They still hold most of this stock but sold a few recently to fund the listing of their mineral sand assets on the AIM also.

As part of the REH deal however they also secured the following:

1. The rights to invest / partnership in any future project involving CETO.
2. The rights to invest into future renewable energy projects deemed appropriate on same terms as REH.

This should allow them over time to build up a portfolio of renewable energy projects in Europe, anything to do with CETO and hopefully the commercialisation of a small clean coal project.

It is still a small stock with a long way to go and I think a capital raising will be needed to fund some of the above, however a government grant should be forthcoming if the clean coal is viable.

I like CETO more for the clean desalination than the actual electricity. Here is a recent article in this regards on CETO.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/break...veiled-in-perth/2006/11/22/1163871469983.html

Good luck with it. I just like the sector in general and will keep sourcing alternatives.

Higgo


----------



## pacer (25 November 2006)

billhill said:
			
		

> Hi Guys,
> With the increased awareness of global warming in the last couple of years and the acknoledgement by governments that it actually exist i thought it would be interesting to have a discussion on the companies that may benefit the most due to possible changes in the climate and carbon legislation. Any ideas?
> 
> Billhill




A SMALL RAMP...*SLA*...THEY USE CONIFER NEEDLES TO MAKE THIER PRODUCTS ..THEREFORE...CARBON CREDITS!...


----------



## chops_a_must (2 December 2006)

Totally forgot. Platinum and palladium are used in just about all technologies that limit carbon emissions. Platinum producers might be good long term holds if you look at possible ever increasing demands for the stuff.


----------



## Jikx (3 December 2006)

Sims Group Metal (SGM)

Recycling of metals uses a lot less electricity than extraction from the ground. The addition of a carbons tax / trading will boost the attractiveness of recycling , and Sims is well poised to take advantage of it. Even if carbon legislation does not come in for a decade, it's still a well run and managed company - and most importantly profitable!


----------



## billhill (4 December 2006)

Noticed today that the biofuel companies have done very well. The only reason i could find for the move was this link below stating the the US administration will push automakers to produce more flex cars. If anybody knows any other reasons for the biofuels push today please let us know.

http://online.wsj.com/google_login..../SB116519791952339652.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


----------



## chops_a_must (4 December 2006)

billhill said:
			
		

> Noticed today that the biofuel companies have done very well. The only reason i could find for the move was this link below stating the the US administration will push automakers to produce more flex cars. If anybody knows any other reasons for the biofuels push today please let us know.
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/google_login..../SB116519791952339652.html?mod=googlenews_wsj



Not all have. The babcock & brown led one has been smacked a bit.


----------



## billhill (10 January 2007)

Found an article from about a year ago that highlights some other companies at least partially in the business of sustainability.

http://www.ecoinvestor.com.au/Editions/Eco_Investor_February_2006.pdf


----------



## ezyTrader (13 January 2007)

Re: Water infrastructure

AWS's price perked up. With plans to open 8 new stores nationwide, surely, they must be on the right track, with government rebates for water conservation and recycling?

Or, is this just pure market speculation?

I'm still new to this (trading business), but certainly can see that global warming plus increasing population, water supply and capacity planning and such, would be of some interests(government and private).

Also, like the look of the EVZ price chart. Certainly, under the radar. But, certainly, steady as she goes...


----------



## mmmmining (16 January 2007)

I think the carbon tax system should be reformed. It should tax both power producer and the energy producer, such as coal miners etc. 

By the same rule, the uranium producers should be traded like renewable energy producers because of nuclear power having no global warming gases emission, and it should take carbon credits from coal miners etc.

Any uranium miner should be considered as excellent investment in fighting global warming.


----------



## Kaizen (16 January 2007)

ASX:COZ - CO2 GROUP LIMITED

CO2 AUSTRALIA : The new ‘C02 Australia’ division of the C02 Group will provide environmental services, namely carbon sequestration. The company will generate carbon credits for clients through its biomass carbon sinks. COZ has just planted 1,000 acres of Malle eucalypt trees in country New South Wales. The company does not own the land but holds a forestry right with a 150 year restrictive covenant over the trees which are typically planted on farmers land. Carbon credits are sold to clients who wish to avoid paying the applicable penalty to the relevant government for producing emissions above an allowable amount. COZ has gained accreditation under the carbon sequestration provision of the NSW Government’s Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme to create carbon credits from forests.


----------



## theasxgorilla (16 January 2007)

I don't know about the best companies to invest in for global warming...but I'm going to start growing grapes for wine in southern Sweden.  The climate is already mild in the same way as parts of England and this year December was the warmest it's been since records began back in 1756.

The world is changing!


----------



## bt777 (20 January 2007)

Extract from TenBaggerQuarterly.com Dec issue:

Take special note of the *Plascon *section

BUY: DOLOMATRIX
ASX Code: DMX
It is not often we find a fast growing “toll road” trading at a
deep discount to true value. But Dolomatrix, a toxic waste
treatment company, offers just such an opportunity.
Hazardous waste treatment is arguably more of a “toll road”
than an actual “toll road”. Producers of toxic waste are required
by law to have it treated, yet few people will consent to a new
toxic waste dump opening in their neighbourhood. Hazardous
waste treatment is also a dangerous business, and obtaining a
government license is a long and costly process. The significant
obstacles in establishing new toxic waste treatment facilities
mean that incumbent operators effectively enjoy a legislated
monopoly, enabling them to earn incredible profit margins.

Dolomatrix has long been a very ugly duckling. The company
listed in 2001 to commercialise its “Dolocrete” hazardous waste
treatment process, which turns hazardous waste into safe solids
at low cost, but long delays saw the share price decline 97% to
15c by early 2006. However, the company’s fortunes have been
transformed by the recent acquisitions of hazardous waste
treatment firms BCDT Group and Chemsal Resource Recovery.

Highly regarded Chemsal currently operates two fully licensed
hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities in Melbourne
(Laverton) and Sydney (Weatherill Park), taking a “full service”
approach in handling everything from decontamination,
specialist waste transport and treatment to resource recovery.

Dolomatrix’s other major acquisition, the BCDT Group,
operates licensed facilities in Queensland and Victoria for the
destruction of toxic wastes contaminated with pesticides
including PCBs, HCBs, and DDT. Collectively referred to as
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), these biohazards have a
prolonged life cycle in the environment, and can only be
processed by specially licensed facilities. BCDT and Chemsal
operate the only Australian facilities licensed to destroy POPs.

In addition, BCDT’s Victorian plant holds the only Australian
license to destroy potent greenhouse gas trifluoromethane and
organic chemicals such as PCBs, halons (once used in fire
extinguishers) and CFCs (banned refrigerants). 
[/B]
BCDT employs
its proprietary “Plascon” technology to convert these hazardous
gases and liquids into harmless solids.
There are now ten Plascon units around the world. A Plascon
plant is a solid little earner because under the Kyoto Protocol
developed countries pay carbon credits for projects that
reduce greenhouse gas emissions – such as destroying
trifluoromethane, which has a global warming potential 11,700
times that of CO2. At the going rate of over $20 per tonne of
CO2, the rate per tonne of trifluoromethane is over $200,000,
which exceeds the cost of destruction more than twenty fold.
Add that to the fact that Plascon destroys around a tonne per
day, and the economics for customers are compelling.
BCDT used to sell Plascon plants for a one-off fee of $1.3m,
but secured recurring revenues in a recent sale to Venezuela.
“Advanced discussions” are progressing for similar deals.[/B]

Dolomatrix’s original Dolocrete technology is also showing
promise. Management is “confident” of selling an exclusive
South African license for Dolocrete for US$15m, with
regulatory approvals already underway. Heads of Agreement
have been signed for Saudia Arabia, Thailand and Malaysia.

Dolomatrix management is forecasting “strong organic
revenue growth across each business unit” in FY2007, with
Chemsal building two new waste treatment plants and BCDT
expanding its Victorian facility. In addition, BCDT has won new
contracts and has secured increased treatment prices.

We forecast Dolomatrix will earn a profit after tax of $7.5m
for FY2007, rising to $11.5m in FY2008, from organic growth
as well as the realization of synergies from integrating
Chemsal, BCDT and Dolocrete. With a current market
capitalization of $96.0m, DMX shares are trading at a FY2008
forward P/E of 8.3. Given the low risk monopoly
characteristics of toxic waste treatment and strong growth
potential from technology licensing, we expect the shares to
be re-rated to $1.80-$2.50 over the next 18-24 months. BUY.
March 2006 December 2006
Dolomatrix
Issue 064 www.tenbaggerquarterly.com December 14th, 2006
11


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 January 2007)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> I think the carbon tax system should be reformed. It should tax both power producer and the energy producer, such as coal miners etc.
> 
> By the same rule, the uranium producers should be traded like renewable energy producers because of nuclear power having no global warming gases emission, and it should take carbon credits from coal miners etc.



Two issues to consider there. One is that any form of carbon tax only works if it applies to ALL countries since heavily polluting activity is easily shifted around the world. 

For example, alumina is shipped from Queensland to Tasmania where it is refined into aluminium metal, virtually all of which is then sent back to the mainland or overseas. Likewise the manganese ore shipped from the Northern Territory to Tasmania where it is processed and 100% of it shipped to mainland and international markets. The sole reason for these plants being located in Tasmania comes down to one word - "Hydro". The aluminium smelter alone uses more power than every house in the state. 

New Zealand has a large aluminium smelter for exactly the same reasons as Tasmania. Cheap hydro power. Likewise the smelters in Victoria, NSW and Queensland are only there due to cheap (coal-fired) electricity made possible by economies of scale in the massive power plants in those states (hence why there aren't aluminium smelters in WA or SA). Do anything that makes this power uncompetitive in the global market and the smelters go somewhere else. An economic loss to Australia whilst the pollution simply shifts rather than ends. Hence the futility of any form of tax affecting industrial energy use that doesn't apply to every country on earth (especially Middle East, Russia, China, South Africa etc).

The other issue is that there is a realistic possibility of coal becoming a low or zero emissions power source in the future via geosequestration. It would be problematic to tax coal destined for polluting use but not tax identical coal destined for non-polluting use, especially given that both uses may well be occurring at the same location and done by the same company. 

Such a situation is already planned in Queensland. Same coal, same location of consumption, same company and the same product (electricity) produced. But some of the coal used will pollute and some won't. Hence it makes sense to tax the pollution rather than the coal.


----------



## billhill (25 January 2007)

I noticed that in george bush's state of the union address that he promoted the decrease in oil imports by 20% and replace this with biofuels and better efficiency. Searching news reports today he has been visiting duponts R&D biofuels facility in support of the industry. So is this just more political spin or is there going to be a serious push for biofuels, and what does it mean for australia. Would appreciate others opinions.


----------



## BuyandHold (31 January 2007)

I like timber companies to benefit from actions to address global warming.

They usually offer good franked yields and relatively stable earnings. In the long run I think timber will be seen as the environmentally friendly building material of choice. It operates as a carbon sink, holding in CO2 for centuries. Also timber planations may eventually benefit from carbon credits under any future carbon trading regime. I have GTP, GNS and FEA myself.

I'm would like to see some earnings before I touch a Geothermal stock.


----------



## noobs (1 February 2007)

For people looking into good global warming & alternative energy companies i seriuosly recommend you take a look at EDE - Eden Energy. These guys have so many projects with massive potential but the real money maker will be Hythane and its proposed/associated carbon credits firstly in India. If they get this right than this could spread round the world like wildfire: 

Check out their quarterly - http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20070131/pdf/310r9kbmf79455.pdf

A great read and I hold for long term on this baby.


----------



## billhill (8 February 2007)

The issue of global warming really seems to be gaining serious momentum in the last year and particually last month or so. Interesting then that worlds leading environmental stocks gained over 150% for the year 2006 (see link).

http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=12461&channel=0

Seeing as australia has not had any real boom in renewable energy stocks and the global warming issue is probably only going to become more prominent, is perhaps now the right time to hop on some of the shares listed on this thread. Everyone on this site is talking up a biotech boom but maybe the boom will come from renewable companies or maybe a wider technology boom is coming. Anyone else thinking of some exposure to green stocks.


----------



## Rafa (9 February 2007)

i like your thinking...
biotechs may boom, but its so hit and miss...

the main areas of focus are

solar
solar farms / columns
geo thermal
tidal
nuclear (only as a transition fuel for the next 30- 40 years)
wind (only cause it seems to be fashionable at present)


----------



## dodgers (10 February 2007)

Everyone with an interest in this subject should read the below link - "Investment Implications of an Abrupt Climate Change" by Sprott Assett Management

http://www.sprott.com/pdf/climate.pdf

Its one of the few balanced perspecives on climate change and its financial consequences so far. Their view on the future is:

- Nuclear for electricity generation
- Renewable energies - wind, hydro, biomass (however net energy benefit of biomass is debatable unless on a large scale)
- Clean coal technologies - liquification & gasification


----------



## Jimminy (11 February 2007)

does anyone follow Envirozel (EVZ) and wish to share their thoughts on the short - medium term prospects of this company.

I have done my own research but wish to hear from anyone closing following this stock.


----------



## Halba (12 February 2007)

DMX - they have some anti greenhouse gas technology

mainly hazardous waste mngmt which is also a plus for the environment


----------



## sunboy (13 February 2007)

Dpn ´t forget solar stocks like Solco, the best choice at the moment!!!


----------



## BIG BWACULL (13 February 2007)

sunboy said:
			
		

> Dpn ´t forget solar stocks like Solco, the best choice at the moment!!!



I like EVM enviromission and there solar tower concept, its gonna Kick other energys in the butt when it gets off the ground, But due to the inability of the government  to foresee the potential of this technology   evm are looking to the U.S for funding and are stirring up a lot of interest, Good news came in yesterday and i hope it keeps up its fight for its future and ours. Input = SUN Output = 0% emission, gotta love that


----------



## TheAbyss (22 February 2007)

Read an interesting article in the Bulletin earlier this month on the benificiaries of the water crisis looming. I have pasted it here for your thoughts.

Water looks like liquid gold
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Billions are being allocated to upgrade the nation's flagging water systems, offering opportunities for companies and investors, writes Giles Parkinson.
There has been a nickel boom, an oil boom, and a dotcom boom. What chance the next boom on the Australian stockmarket will be driven by water? 

The combined effects of the drought and the parlous state of the nation's water infrastructure means two things for investors and consumers: the price of water is going up, and tens of billions of dollars will need to be invested to upgrade irrigation systems, create new city water grids and build equipment such as recycling and desalination plants.

A report by broking house Citigroup called "Turning on the Tap: Opportunities in Water" identifies over a dozen companies well-placed to tap into the enormous capital spending required: engineers, contractors and project managers, and manufacturers of pipes, valves and tanks.



It also highlights the case for privatisation, and opportunities for water industry investors and infrastructure specialists such as Macquarie Bank, Babcock & Brown, Alinta and Hastings Funds Management. "The existing system hasn't worked," says Citigroup economist Shane Lee.

Federal and state governments have been too slow to adjust to the longer-term impact of climate change, Lee argues. And despite the Queensland government's commitment last year to spend $7bn over four years on water infrastructure, and the federal government's pledge to spend $10bn on the Murray-Darling basin over the next 10 years, billions more will be required.

Those plans are good news for stocks leveraged to water development, including engineering and project management firms like Leighton, Multiplex, Cardno, United, Transfield and Downer. Leighton subsidiary John Holland is building the Tugun desalination plant on the Gold Coast, while Multiplex was part of a consortium that recently commissioned a Perth desalination plant.

The government's Murray-Darling package includes more than $8bn for the lining and piping of major delivery channels, improved metering, upgraded irrigation systems and water storage facilities. This is good news for manufacturers of pipes, pumps, valves, meters and tanks such as Waterco, Crane, GUD, GWA, Bluescope and Nylex.

"However, even this late charge in big spending is unlikely to be enough over the longer term," Lee says. A report by Engineers Australia late last year allocated a "C minus" average to the nation's stormwater assets, rating them as needing significant investment. Few water assets, in any state, got higher than a B minus.

The solution, Lee says, will come not just from increased spending, but a change in public policy. "It seems the current system of corporatised, state government-run water urban utilities and local councils is clearly struggling to deliver adequate water infrastructure." Urban utilities have been in a poor state since before the drought. In Sydney and Melbourne, the ratio of capital expenditure to operating expenses has been 30%, when it should be at least 70%.

Lee says this is an opportunity for the private sector to reduce the cost of operation and share the savings with customers.

Among Australia's publicly listed electrical power distributors, he notes, the ratio of capital expenditure to operating expenses is 95%. Privatisation of the UK water industry, a potential blueprint for Australia, has led to more investment and improved customer service and water quality.

Lee estimates the value of water utilities in big Australian cities at $48bn. He expects Alinta to be a major player. So, too, will French conglomerates Veolia Water Systems and Suez which control nearly half the world's water supply business. Not in the report are Macquarie and Westpac's Hastings Funds Management, which own vast tracts of the UK market, and the likes of Babcock & Brown and other infrastructure specialists and pension funds.

Water customers will face higher bills no matter what happens. Lee says Australians pay 20% below the OECD average. "It suggests we don't pay enough here. We have to have a proper price mechanism for water - as a trigger for its use and for investment, and to reflect its scarcity."


----------



## bhiggins (25 February 2007)

With Rudds announcement of 1.5B warchest for clean coal technology, what stocks do people know about in this area that could benefit. I only know of CNM that is developing a different clean coal technology.

I am sure Howard will do something similar in this regard.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 February 2007)

I've long been of the view that the major reason Australia's water resources have been managed the way they have is in order to pave the way for privatisation.

Not that privatisation would actually fix anything, at least not in the long term. Just look at the woeful lack of adequate investment in power (the next national crisis IMO). Or for that matter, the reality that the private water companies in the UK can't maintain a reliable supply in a country famous for rain.

It's potentially a nice profit to be made however. Indeed given the situation in Eastern Australia (incl SA) with water, power (excluding Qld and Tas), gas and transport I'm thinking that infrastructure in general is an investment theme to be following.


----------



## bt777 (27 February 2007)

EDE - just finalising the details on the big one - big big numbers expected out in next few weeks


----------



## bt777 (27 February 2007)

GRV - check them out - they have access to some nice technology for cleaner burning coal when mixed with their shale oil deposits.
And not many shares to boot.


----------



## billhill (27 February 2007)

bhiggins said:
			
		

> With Rudds announcement of 1.5B warchest for clean coal technology, what stocks do people know about in this area that could benefit. I only know of CNM that is developing a different clean coal technology.




Try industrial engineering services groups such as transfeild services. Also waste management companies may play a role.


----------



## billhill (31 March 2007)

ESI (environmental clean technologies limited)- This company has been mentioned before on this thread however when it was, there was little information available. So i was doing a bit of research into some companies on this thread and have found that this company is much more organised then previously. In fact they now concentrate on clean coal technologies. 

Ok so clean coal is probably a long way away but it is this companies clean steel technology that is of most interest to me. Basically the company claims they have developed a process whereby brown coal can be used in place of coking coal to produce 99% pure steel even from low grade ore. The process can also be adapted to other metals such as lead, zinc and chromium. The advantages claimed by the process are replacing $350 a tonne coking coal with $5 per tonne lignite, One step process requiring vastly less energy and able to recover minerals from scale and other waste materials. The processing of the coal in the technology actually yeilds drinkable water as a byproduct. 

Now in the age of carbon limits not only will this technology help the mining industry reduce its carbon emissions but also it should reduce the cost of metals extraction if they can use less and cheaper energy sources. A win win technology IMO. This company may do extremely well in a carbon trading ecconomy, especially when australias biggest industry is mining.Web site below

http://www.cleancoal.com.au/index.htm


----------



## mmmmining (1 April 2007)

WFL. Plantation will help absorb CO2, store it in wood, which might last thousands years if you don't burn it.

People such as Jim Rogers always hope the soft commodities such as Wheat, soybeans, cotton, etc should be skyrocketing because higher demand. But he might forget about the impact of global warming. More CO2 and warmer weather will help produce more food. So supply can keep up with demand, so no price spike yet.


----------



## deftfear (1 April 2007)

mmmmining said:


> People such as Jim Rogers always hope the soft commodities such as Wheat, soybeans, cotton, etc should be skyrocketing because higher demand. But he might forget about the impact of global warming. More CO2 and warmer weather will help produce more food. So supply can keep up with demand, so no price spike yet.




The weather might be hotter, which if you have enough water can help grow fantastic crops, but there is the problem, enough water. Most farmers in in the eastern half of Australia have hardly had any water entitlement this year, and hence have hardly grown a thing.


----------



## billhill (4 April 2007)

The reason i started this thread was because i believed global warming would change the world market dynamics and in particular start a boom in renewable energy. I wanted to position myself so i could take advantage of of this possible boom. Since this thread was started the climate change debate has picked up steam however we have seen little if any movement in renewable stocks. Finally we may be seeing the beginning of renewables becoming mainstrean as overnight there was a major revaluing in the wind energy sector (the most mature of the renewables if you discount hydro, see link below). 

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...x?guid={AD415BB9-6D54-42F7-B3F5-061161B32D5F}


----------



## mmmmining (5 April 2007)

billhill said:


> The reason i started this thread was because i believed global warming would change the world market dynamics and in particular start a boom in renewable energy. I wanted to position myself so i could take advantage of of this possible boom. Since this thread was started the climate change debate has picked up steam however we have seen little if any movement in renewable stocks. Finally we may be seeing the beginning of renewables becoming mainstrean as overnight there was a major revaluing in the wind energy sector (the most mature of the renewables if you discount hydro, see link below).
> 
> http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...x?guid={AD415BB9-6D54-42F7-B3F5-061161B32D5F}




Believe it or not, energy has time value. For example, in a hot humid summer calm day, the spot energy could spike to 1000 times than normal price because everyone want energy, there is no supply.  Can you rely on wind energy? You can figure it out what happens to a breeze spring day when the wind farm is singing loudly when wind power could only be sold at a fraction of normal price because nobody need it. 

Wind power, particular solar power have to heavily rely on the government free money to survive. It is a wrong policy, and an illusion to fool people like you and me. 

The only economic viable, and without government support, and can solve all human kind energy requirement, and friendly to environment is nuclear power.

It is morally irresponsible and corrupted to invest into a sector that rely on government support. 

Let's me give you another fatal blow to renewable energy. A lot of renewable energy system even cannot produce enough energy to compensate the non-renewable energy required to manufacture, transport, installation, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning in its life.

There is no such thing that renewable energy could be mainstream energy in my life time, trust me with that.


----------



## insider (5 April 2007)

Are there any companies that deal with geothermal power stations?


----------



## billhill (5 April 2007)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> Believe it or not, energy has time value. For example, in a hot humid summer calm day, the spot energy could spike to 1000 times than normal price because everyone want energy, there is no supply. Can you rely on wind energy? You can figure it out what happens to a breeze spring day when the wind farm is singing loudly when wind power could only be sold at a fraction of normal price because nobody need it.
> 
> Wind power, particular solar power have to heavily rely on the government free money to survive. It is a wrong policy, and an illusion to fool people like you and me.
> 
> ...




Sorry mmmmining but i beg to differ. For a start carbon trading will be a fact of life in this country sometime in the next two years and a world market will follow in the not too distant future. This will level the playing field as to renewables cost disadvantage. This industry has many similarities to the computer industry in the early 80's. Its not yet 100% proven and requires still more scientific research but once it takes off it will be grow exponentially. 

Your point that the wind isn't always blowing and the sun not alays shining is valid currently and although renewables arn't the be all end all solution they will make up aconsiderable amount of energy output in the future. However these problem will be overcome via energy storage technology refinement an numerous other solution too long to list. If you look at the facts as they present themselves the cost of renewables is falling at an exponential rate. Within 15 years solar and wind power will be cheaper then coal currently is. Currently the solar industry is expanding art 40% pa while the wind sector at 25%. We also have a water crisis currently and some other threads discuss how coal plants have to drop output because of a shortage of water. With more global warming their will be less water. Renewable don't require water generally, they don't require fuel and only require an initial capital outlay. A lot more going for them then nuclear or coal.

Look at the computer industry, infact just about any tech industry (mobile phones, internet, batteries, etc) and see how much they have advanced over even the last 5 years.  Government support will only be required to set up the industry until the technological advances and ecconomies of scale drive the industry to the forefront of the energy sector. I for one am not going to miss the boat. oh and after this boom matures be ready to position yourselves for the next one. My tip, the robotics or nanotechnology sectors.

Insider, there is a list of geothermals on the fist page of this thread.


----------



## mmmmining (5 April 2007)

billhill said:


> Sorry mmmmining but i beg to differ. For a start carbon trading will be a fact of life in this country sometime in the next two years and a world market will follow in the not too distant future. This will level the playing field as to renewables cost disadvantage. This industry has many similarities to the computer industry in the early 80's. Its not yet 100% proven and requires still more scientific research but once it takes off it will be grow exponentially.
> 
> Your point that the wind isn't always blowing and the sun not alays shining is valid currently and although renewables arn't the be all end all solution they will make up aconsiderable amount of energy output in the future. However these problem will be overcome via energy storage technology refinement an numerous other solution too long to list. If you look at the facts as they present themselves the cost of renewables is falling at an exponential rate. Within 15 years solar and wind power will be cheaper then coal currently is. Currently the solar industry is expanding art 40% pa while the wind sector at 25%. We also have a water crisis currently and some other threads discuss how coal plants have to drop output because of a shortage of water. With more global warming their will be less water. Renewable don't require water generally, they don't require fuel and only require an initial capital outlay. A lot more going for them then nuclear or coal.
> 
> ...



Man, you have been polluted by media and government. The only economic solution to energy and environment problem is *Nuclear Energy*. Just remember I heard the term of renewable energy is not today, not this year. I was educated on it, and had been working on it for almost third years.

By the way, all form of renewable energy is the consequence of nuclear energy. People don't realize it just because the source is either too far away (the Sun), or too deep (>2km down).

So think renewable, think nuclear energy.

For solving global warming problem, nuclear energy + plant a lot trees.


----------



## chops_a_must (5 April 2007)

mmmmining said:


> Can you rely on wind energy? You can figure it out what happens to a breeze spring day when the wind farm is singing loudly when wind power could only be sold at a fraction of normal price because nobody need it.



Say that the breeze doesn't blow all the time to these trees, Lol:


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (5 April 2007)

One word, Greenough


----------



## wayneL (5 April 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Say that the breeze doesn't blow all the time to these trees, Lol:



That's just up the road from me and yup, it blows all the time!!!!!!


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (5 April 2007)

I've got a nice close up of the Walkaway turbines, thier huge............, happy to pass it on for someone to post (I'm a noob at uploading images).


----------



## YChromozome (5 April 2007)

Are they ever.

This is some photos of a MiniMac (Babcock & Brown Wind Partner's) Wind Farm going in.

Nacelle on a truck, negotiating a double lane round-a-bout (Notice the sign on the light pole - 'Sustainability')
1 of 3 Blades on a truck
Nacelle and blades ready to be erected.

However my money is on Hot Rock Geothermal.


----------



## billhill (5 April 2007)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> Man, you have been polluted by media and government. The only economic solution to energy and environment problem is Nuclear Energy. Just remember I heard the term of renewable energy is not today, not this year. I was educated on it, and had been working on it for almost third years.
> 
> By the way, all form of renewable energy is the consequence of nuclear energy. People don't realize it just because the source is either too far away (the Sun), or too deep (>2km down).
> 
> ...




Me polluted, take a look at yourself. You sound like half the people on this website. yellowcake in their eyes. And when you refer to the sun being nuclear this is not your conventional splitting of a U molecule its called fusion totally different process and one we have not yet harnessed. Look at who is backing renewables today and the list is growing bigger. General electric, Babcock and brown, JP morgan, BP, deutsche bank, bill Gates, the list goes on. Maybe you should ring these companies and let them know the mistake they are making. Irregardless of what you beleive will happen europe will move ahead on renewables with or without the rest of the world and eventually completely secure their energy needs. The future fundamentals in this industry heavily outweigh nuclear or coal.

Bill gates didn't get to where he is today by looking to the past (nuclear coal) he did it by seeing the future(renewables).


----------



## mmmmining (5 April 2007)

billhill said:


> Me polluted, take a look at yourself. You sound like half the people on this website. yellowcake in their eyes. And when you refer to the sun being nuclear this is not your conventional splitting of a U molecule its called fusion totally different process and one we have not yet harnessed. Look at who is backing renewables today and the list is growing bigger. General electric, Babcock and brown, JP morgan, BP, deutsche bank, bill Gates, the list goes on. Maybe you should ring these companies and let them know the mistake they are making. Irregardless of what you beleive will happen europe will move ahead on renewables with or without the rest of the world and eventually completely secure their energy needs. The future fundamentals in this industry heavily outweigh nuclear or coal.
> 
> Bill gates didn't get to where he is today by looking to the past (nuclear coal) he did it by seeing the future(renewables).




Nuclear energy include nuclear fusion and nuclear fission process. My statement about solar energy is the consequence of nuclear energy is 100% correct. Anyway, scientist all over the world is working on ITER project for full-scale fusion power reactor now.

Simple ask yourself a question, are they scientists? They are a bunch of layman who want to fool you, to get your vote, buy their products, or huge ego. 

Hay, I am not against renewable energy. Just cannot be a mainstream technology. 

I am not against investment in renewable energy. Anything can be hyped. 

I don't want to argue with you. You put your money in renewable energy, I put my money on nuclear energy and plantation. Just don't fool yourself, and say renewable energy is mainstream energy.


----------



## billhill (5 April 2007)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> I put my money on nuclear energy and plantation. Just don't fool yourself, and say renewable energy is mainstream energy.




We'll see who is the fool when your stocks end up paying costs for 100000 year of waste storage, while renewable stock will enjoy the booms of having solar systems installed on the roofs of every building on the planet.


----------



## mmmmining (5 April 2007)

billhill said:


> We'll see who is the fool when your stocks end up paying costs for 100000 year of waste storage, while renewable stock will enjoy the booms of having solar systems installed on the roofs of every building on the planet.




Please stop argue with me about this point. The more you say, and the more you show lake of knowledge. 

Nuclear power companies are currently levied  by government for the cost of waste disposal. On the top of my head, in US is about 0.2c/KWhr ATM. 

And solar system on your roofs cannot make your car move. Just remember energy consumption is not want you can see, such as TV, light, cooking, electronics, and hot water, etc. 

Everything human made, and used consume energy, which is simply cannot be meet economically with renewable energy. 

This is my last post on this thread. Believe what you believe, do your own research on investment and energy. Don't limited yourself to a pre-defined box.


----------



## chops_a_must (5 April 2007)

mmmmining said:


> Please stop argue with me about this point. The more you say, and the more you show lake of knowledge.



Hahahaha. That just says it all...


----------



## professor_frink (5 April 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Hahahaha. That just says it all...


----------



## billhill (7 April 2007)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> Please stop argue with me about this point. The more you say, and the more you show lake of knowledge.
> 
> Nuclear power companies are currently levied by government for the cost of waste disposal. On the top of my head, in US is about 0.2c/KWhr ATM
> 
> This is my last post on this thread. Believe what you believe, do your own research on investment and energy. Don't limited yourself to a pre-defined box.




Look i don't want to argue either. But you were the one who called me a fool over my predictions that renewable will become the major energy source in the future. I never said it would take over tomorrow all i was trying to say was it would not be too(10-20years) long before it became cost competitive with coal and nuclear and that i beleive that the base load and storage problems of renewables would be overcome. I stated the reason why i believe this to be so and you don't have to agree but you gave no good reasons why the problems encounted by renewables cannot be overcome in the future you simply stated their current problems. 



> And solar system on your roofs cannot make your car move. Just remember energy consumption is not want you can see, such as TV, light, cooking, electronics, and hot water, etc.




They can if a car is electric. In fact i believe car will be painted in solar dyes and be able to generate electricity themselves in the future ( cars being electric in the future).



> Everything human made, and used consume energy, which is simply cannot be meet economically with renewable energy.




Your 100% right, At the moment. Will this be the case in the future, i tend to think not.

You use the present state of affairs to argue your point. Well things change over time. If you seriously beleive that we cannot improve the efficiency and cost of renewable sources then you have a very pessamistic veiw of the world.


----------



## billhill (18 April 2007)

For anyone interested here is an article outlining the performance of renewable energy stocks in the first quarter of 2007.

http://www.hedgeweek.com/articles/detail.jsp?content_id=92523


----------



## bean (18 April 2007)

A company that can build leeves to keep the sea out of Queensland.
How many house will have natural sea water pools in there back yards.
Coastal Australia do we have a problem. 
Everyone is looking at ways to stop Greenhouse gases etc etc.
But what about problem that is more important to Joe Blow in say 30 years a house with a swiming pool you didn't want. Or lets cut emission.
If Global warming is in then this is a reality not just a fix that will happen overnight.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 April 2007)

If renewable energy isn't the mainstream future then by definition we don't have energy in the mainstream future since non-renewable sources are just that - a limited resource.

Renewables generate more electricity than either nuclear or oil at present (though of course oil has lots of other uses) and projections generally indicate that this will continue to be the case. 

Present ranking of world electricity sources, according to the EIA (US Govt) is coal, gas, renewable, nuclear, oil in that order.


----------



## BIG BWACULL (19 April 2007)

Interesting show on 4 corners the other night about renewables called "Earth Wind & Fire" As it points out Goverments not investing in these technologies now for the future do so at their own peril, You cant put all your eggs in one basket (Simplest rule of investing aint it) Clean coal yeah great (do they even know how do do it yet? pump it into the ground and store it Yeah great isnt that like sweeping rubbish under the carpet ) As with all technologies, new,better,cost effective, efficient ways of making things are always around the corner but if you don't bring them to the foreground they get forgotten and underdeveloped. Renewables are their at Australias fingertips but we want to put it on the backburner and by doing so let all these companies that develop efficient clean energy to be gobbled up by overseas investors and moved offshore. We are at the forefront in the drivers seat yet wish to give it up and become a passenger.That SUX any who heres a link to that program see ya  oh check the interviews as well

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s1895335.htm

Interviews
http://http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/20070416_energy/video.htm


----------



## billhill (16 May 2007)

> It says by 2030, there will be far less water for coal-fired power plants and water electricity, and telecommunications bills will rise.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1924167.htm

Another reason to downsize the coal industry. The amount of water it uses according to the CSIRO will become a problem with increasing shortages and prices are likely to rise. Solution=energy production that uses much less water. Companies that service this may have an advantage.


----------



## Caliente (16 May 2007)

like nuclear billhill?

Seriously man - you know I like renewable energy ideas and am always on the lookout for promising solar/wind plays but the truth is Nuclear is here to stay and it is the temporary solution until we finally move to renewables.

My father is a prof of Electrical and Computer Engineering; attends the major conventions/conferences/ARC (Australian Research Centre)/Renewable Energy meetings etc. the lot - and he says that even in a best case scenario, Renewables will never make up over 20-30% of the grid because they cannot provide a reliable base load. Solar doesn't even come close for obvious reasons, but wind is getting there, one inch at a time (a well sited tower will generate for most of the day/is space efficient compared to solar and can be custom designed with the areas current wind flow in mind)

This is the fact.

This is also why my portfolio is Yellowcake rich. 

But good renewable companies definitely have their place too, if I spot any I will PM you.

Cheers
-Cali


----------



## YChromozome (16 May 2007)

Caliente said:


> and he says that even in a best case scenario, Renewables will never make up over 20-30% of the grid because they cannot provide a reliable base load.




Maybe your father needs to go to a HDR/HFR geothermal conference. HFR geothermal offers base load renewable energy. And the resource is huge.


----------



## bhiggins (16 May 2007)

If anyone following clean coal and wave energy should check out Carnegie (CNM) again as it has moved strongly in recent weeks - especially in line with the WA governments announcment yesterday about building a second desal plant.

Check out this link for info on how the wave energy is progressing.

http://www.ceto.com.au/home.php

DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH


----------



## Caliente (16 May 2007)

hi - my knowledge is limited on HDR/HFR so I havent asked him about it. But on doing some reading it looks like hot rock geothermal has some unique advantages/disadvantages.

Advantages: Base Load/Renewable/Emission Free.


Disadvantages:from this excerpt on RadioNational http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/earth/stories/s18546.htm

- Cost > this can be overcome with time and as experience grows.

- Water >For one, it requires huge amounts of water to keep it running

From the article;

"A small five megawatt plant would use eight and a half megalitres of water per day, which is about five olympic swimming pools and a full scale commercial plant would use ten times that amount."

Water would be lost at a rate of 20-30%. So a commercial large scale plant would consume 85 megalitres of water a day with a 20-30% loss rate...

this in itself is trickier but can be solved however, by locating close to massive underground water resources/fresh lakes/?ocean


> not a transportable fuel. Hot Rock energy is generated on site - how would we supply China/India/Europe/USA with HDR/HFR energy?

This cannot be solved.


----------



## YChromozome (16 May 2007)

billhill said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1924167.htm
> It says by 2030, there will be far less water for coal-fired power plants and water electricity, and telecommunications bills will rise.




Interesting that they predict 2030. Actually the problem is here already, and any renewable energy investors would be watching the spot electricity prices rise.

Tarong and Tarong North power stations in Queensland is now running at 30% capacity due to lack of water. The flow on effects mean Rio Tinto has laying off 160 jobs at its Tarong Mine.

In Victoria's Latrobe Valley, Yallourn and Loy Yang B has gone to water auctions to buy in extra water to see them through to the end of the financial year - 1 and a half months away . .


----------



## YChromozome (16 May 2007)

Caliente said:


> - Water >For one, it requires huge amounts of water to keep it running




Geodynamic's (ASX:GDY) got quite a surprise when they drilled through the sediment rock in the Cooper Basin, S.A. While they were expecting Hot Dry Rock, actually they found hot fractured rock (hence the change of name) and water at some 5000psi. It appeared the rock already contained water and was under pressure, so much so that if you opened the well head, it would shoot hot water and steam 3.5km into the air. These overpressures guarantee no water loss during circulation and GDY has all the water they need, hence is one less risk of the Cooper Basin site has.



Caliente said:


> > not a transportable fuel. Hot Rock energy is generated on site - how would we supply China/India/Europe/USA with HDR/HFR energy?
> 
> This cannot be solved.




That's a bold statement. There is talk about a Hydrogen economy - you can convert the electricity into Hydrogen and transport it, but yes, this is years off.

If you look at another hot rock explorer (ASXTR), Petratherm has a grant to explore for HDR in China. The first HDR geothermal wells were drilled in the USA in the 1960/70s. At the end of the day, is all about the temperature and hence the economics, but should energy prices increase, technologies like HDR Geothermal will become more economically viable in those countries.

And if you want a European one, try http://www.soultz.net/version-en.htm,
Maybe a swiss one? http://www.dhm.ch/dhm.html

I'm not aware of one in India yet, but if you want to put up a few dollars . . .


----------



## billhill (16 May 2007)

Caliente said:
			
		

> like nuclear billhill?
> 
> Seriously man - you know I like renewable energy ideas and am always on the lookout for promising solar/wind plays but the truth is Nuclear is here to stay and it is the temporary solution until we finally move to renewables.
> 
> ...




Cheers Cali. I wasn't thinking of nuclear but i knew someone would have to say it. I think my view on renewables is well known so i won't waffle on repeating myself. Anyway would be interested to know if and how much water nuclear uses.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 May 2007)

billhill said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1924167.htm
> 
> Another reason to downsize the coal industry. The amount of water it uses according to the CSIRO will become a problem with increasing shortages and prices are likely to rise. Solution=energy production that uses much less water. Companies that service this may have an advantage.



How ironic. Coal-fired power plants hit by the effects of climate change.

There are ways to make these plants use 90% or so less water however by the use of dry cooling. It tends to be a bit less efficient however, meaning a slight increase in emissions.

Worth noting that brown coal itself is up to 70% water - at present this is totally lost as vapour and indeed it is steam, not smoke, that you see coming from the stacks of these plants. Also it is the presence of that water which leads to the lower efficiency and hence higher emissions of brown coal plants compared to black coal. 

If it weren't for that lower efficiency then brown coal is in many regards cleaner than black, it's just that we need to use more of it (due to lower efficiency) to get the same power and that's what pushes emissions up.


----------



## YChromozome (16 May 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> Worth noting that brown coal itself is up to 70% water - at present this is totally lost as vapour and indeed it is steam, not smoke, that you see coming from the stacks of these plants. Also it is the presence of that water which leads to the lower efficiency and hence higher emissions of brown coal plants compared to black coal.




I was at Hazelwood at the end of last year and you have to see the water they use in the open cut coal mines. If the coal dries out, it catches fire and Hazelwood had just had one large fire only months before I was there. The remains of one of the burnt out dredgers was visible.

So to prevent fires, they have sprinklers watering down the coal while they cut it out.

[Further to my comments tonight about Tarong and Tarong North running at 30% capacity due to lack of water, I've been told Swanbank B (120MW) and Swanbank B2 (120MW) is off-line due to "Water management" issues. It's already happening.]

I wonder what Snowy Hydro shares would be worth now if they listed?


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 May 2007)

> Advantages: Base Load/Renewable/Emission Free.
> 
> 
> Disadvantages:from this excerpt on RadioNational http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ear...ies/s18546.htm
> ...



Coal-fired power cost a fortune with the early small scale plants over a century ago and indeed costs have, in real and at times even nominal terms, been constantly driven down ever since.

The cost of coal fired-power from a new plant is in the high 30's - low 40's per MWh at the moment. Loy Yang A (Vic, built mid-70's to 1988) cost around $55. At the time of the high profile Gordon-below-Franklin debate in Tasmania (1979-1983) the cost of coal-fired power was estimated at $42 versus the proposed hydro-electric scheme at $14 and industrial power rates around $17 at that time. 

That Tasmania has been in the _international_ electricity market since 1916 is the only reason that dam was ever proposed. It was viable in the global context, coal at that time wasn't. Fast forward to 2007 and coal is viable in the international industrial power market and that's why Queensland has attracted so much heavy industry in recent times - CHEAP power. It's not that hydro (or anything else apart from oil) became more expensive but that coal became cheaper.

Plenty of others have been in the same game for decades too, a point that seems to be generally not understood in mainland Australia - the market is global, not national, and costs need to be compared internationally not nationally. Forget what's happening in NSW or Victoria - the real competition is overseas.

Combine cheap labour with cheap power from coal and you get China. If coal hadn't become globally competitive then to a significant extent you wouldn't see what's happening in China today. Needless to say what happens if you take away that cheap power advantage - hence why they'll fight so hard to retain it.

It's about economic competitiveness not household power bills - lose that edge and either you come up with something else or the economy sinks. Tourism and forestry were a partial alternative in Tasmania but it's hard to imagine that working in China or even Queensland. Indeed it wasn't even a full economic replacement in Tas (hence wind, gas and Basslink).

Coal's continued to get cheaper throughout the past century (driven by increasing plant efficiency and automation) and indeed that's largely why we're not using more renewables now. A point was reached where it became cheap enough to bring power to the industry rather than the reverse but there's no reason it couldn't go back the other way again.

Put a cheap power source in, for example, the NT and just watch industry flee Queensland and come from overseas too. You'd have abandoned plants all over the place before Joe Average had a clue what was going on. The only reason we don't have that happening right now is that the cheapest power, from coal, is widely available internationally. 

If geothermal could be done cheaper than coal then that alone would underpin Australia's economic future just as hydro did in Tasmana from 1916 to 1983. If you are competitive then you WILL have industry. If you aren't then you won't. Simple as that as long as you've got the other key ingredients of stable government, stable workforce, security etc.

It's hard to believe that geothermal wouldn't likewise undergo a cost reduction over time and, if it became cheaper than coal, would see Australia easily become a major world economic power if other countries didn't also have access to that cheap power. 

Cheap power has always been "the master key to industry". With cheap coal basically everyone has access to that cheap power. Shift to renewables and it massively advantages those with the _cheap_ power. 

Obviously anyone lacking the resources for cheap renewable energy would not likely be in favour of that unless they are one of the few (eg Japan) not economically dependent on cheap power. We're talking about not just an energy shift, but a global economic shift of massive proportions. The losers won't go down without a fight.



> Interesting that they predict 2030. Actually the problem is here already, and any renewable energy investors would be watching the spot electricity prices rise.
> 
> Tarong and Tarong North power stations in Queensland is now running at 30% capacity due to lack of water. The flow on effects mean Rio Tinto has laying off 160 jobs at its Tarong Mine.
> 
> In Victoria's Latrobe Valley, Yallourn and Loy Yang B has gone to water auctions to buy in extra water to see them through to the end of the financial year - 1 and a half months away . .




It's not just Tarong, Yallourn and LYB in trouble although they are certainly on the list. Thus far, reduced production at Tarong, Swanbank and others has been offset by increased production elsewhere mostly from other Qld coal-fired plants and gas-fired plants in Qld, Vic, Tas and SA. There's a limit to how far that can go and we're in real trouble (lights out) if too much capacity shuts completely.

The high electricity prices we're seeing at the moment are more a threat to Australia's industrial competitiveness than practically anything else. Much of our industry is only here in the first place due to cheap power and it's cheaper to move the plant than to pay higher power prices. $70 or even $50 per MWh just isn't going to work if someone else is doing it cheaper. 

If Australia is stuck with high power prices then it's in the exact same situation Tasmania was in the 1980's. Forget heavy industry and turn to increased raw material production and the service economy or sink economically. That is, refocus the economy towards "third world" activities that exploit whatever is there naturally and leave the value adding to someone else. That's not necessarily good for the environment by the way unless whoever ends up doing the processing isn't using coal etc.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 May 2007)

YChromozome said:


> I was at Hazelwood at the end of last year and you have to see the water they use in the open cut coal mines. If the coal dries out, it catches fire and Hazelwood had just had one large fire only months before I was there. The remains of one of the burnt out dredgers was visible.
> 
> So to prevent fires, they have sprinklers watering down the coal while they cut it out.
> 
> ...



Yep, been to Hazelwood too both inside and out. They actually pump (or at least did) water out from under the mine otherwise the pressure it creates would be a problem. That is, historically the issue was _too much_ water rather than not enough.

Spot on about the fire, not the first time Morwell mine has caught fire either. It hasn't caused a long term production problem however (so far at least) they are coping with one less dredger. Plant outages have been due to the normal maintenance issues that this plant has.

Swanbank B - Qld government has ordered them to use less water so that's exactly what they're doing. The other two units aren't generating that much power either but they are still online and can ramp to full capacity if need be.

Snowy - this company's finances seem incredibly complex for what is essentially an electricity generator. They seem to be more in the risk management business than actual power generation - a strategy that works as long as they can generate to cover their hedging contracts. 

Worth noting that it's not just their hydro operations (at all of 4% active storage capacity!) that are in trouble but both their gas-fired plants too. One is running out of permitted operating hours unless the environmental restrictions are relaxed (I suspect this is what Snowy is aiming for) whilst the other isn't allowed to run at all 8am to 5pm Monday to Friday due to workers at a nearby unrelated business suffering serious health effects.

Interesting to note that Snowy has actually been generating (voluntarily) some of the time whilst Hydro Tas has been minimising output due to reasonably low market prices. Rather interesting given that Snowy is already in a far worse storage position than Hydro Tas has ever been. Read into it what you will - there are quite a few theories around at the moment...


----------



## billhill (23 May 2007)

For those who invest in renewable stocks here is the rankings of attractiveness for the sector in OECD countries.


----------



## meoden1005 (5 June 2007)

For ur own sake, I recommend AGK, ORG, or BBW. Those stocks wont make headache or heart attack ^^ since they are quite stable.


----------



## anon (19 June 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> How ironic. Coal-fired power plants hit by the effects of climate change.
> 
> There are ways to make these plants use 90% or so less water however by the use of dry cooling. It tends to be a bit less efficient however, meaning a slight increase in emissions.
> 
> ...





As always Smurf your posts are well informed and well put. Thank you.

Your comments on brown coal go well alongside the disclosures made by ESI who claim to have come up with the answer on how to use brown coal. Please look at the claims they are making in their  "Address to potential investors at Cleantech Forum Melbourne"   on  18/04/07  which you'll find by going to     http://www.asx.com.au/asx/research/CompanyInfoSearch.jsp   and using  ESI  as the code and looking at their (ECT's) announcements. 

I think that the Environmental Solutions International have changed their name to  Environmental Clean Technologies Ltd - ECT,  but are still using  ESI  as their ASX code. There is a lot of interesting data re their activities at   http://www.cleancoal.com.au 


In the  "Address to potential investors at Cleantech Forum Melbourne"  they make some very bullish claims such as -   

 WHAT IF .... ?  
"...you could turn Brown Coal into a high energy value feedstock EQUAL to Black Coal  AND  achieve a 30% reduction in greenhouse emissions at the same time?"    
"We are doing it now!"

"...you could mix raw Brown Coal with LOW GRADE, UNMARKETABLE  Iron Ore and limestone and produce CLEAN, LOW CARBON STEEL?"    
"We are doing it now!"

"From every two tonnes of Brown Coal we can produce one tonne of water".

There are a number of other interesting claims made in this presentation, and especially this one - 
"This equates to a fully diluted share price of $1.95 plus". This is a very bullish claim seeing that they are trading at around 20c at present.


The above are extracts from information released by  ESI/ECT and are not in any way to be taken as recommendations from me. I do hold some ESI stock.

anon


----------



## purple (22 June 2007)

a quick look acros the charts of the renewable energy companies - still very bullish indeed. many of the companies have had a strong run from the end of 06.

only exception being EVM - solar technologies.

the geothermal guys are enjoying the best runs.


----------



## purple (22 June 2007)

forgot to mention that the list above covers companies with a market cap max  of 600+million. 

that leaves out ORG, which also performed very strongly.

i also left out many other green companies  ENE, DYE, QTM


----------



## Nutshell (5 July 2007)

Coal will probably remain the main source of energy into the immediate future. 
White Energy Co WEC   has a world wide patent for the moisture reduction and binderless briquetting of bituminous coal.  This makes the coal safely transportable and reduces the emissions by about 30%.  Australia does have reserves of this type of coal but huge resources are located in Indonesia, China and US


----------



## purple (5 July 2007)

Nutshell said:


> Coal will probably remain the main source of energy into the immediate future.
> White Energy Co WEC   has a world wide patent for the moisture reduction and binderless briquetting of bituminous coal.  This makes the coal safely transportable and reduces the emissions by about 30%.  Australia does have reserves of this type of coal but huge resources are located in Indonesia, China and US




No doubt about that...countries can't just up and ditch all their coal and command all citizens to live on windmill power, a la MaoZeDong.

but it's th current enthusiasm about green energy that is creating good trends to trade, and money to be made.


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 July 2007)

> The Australian Conservation Foundation figures show that households around Sydney Harbour and on the Brisbane River are the biggest greenhouse polluters in the country.
> 
> They are followed by the inner suburbs of Canberra; Southbank and Docklands in Melbourne; and Fortitude Valley and Newstead in Brisbane.
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/08/1972785.htm

Slightly off topic, it's about emissions rather than investment opportunities, but interesting in terms of the politics of it all.

Actually a rather tangled political mess when you think about it in some depth...


----------



## ozambersand (23 July 2007)

Not sure if this link has been posted yet:
http://www.climateexchange.com.au/



> Australian Climate Exchange Electronic Emissions Trading Platform
> The ACX Electronic Emissions Trading Platform (EETP) is a joint venture between the ACX and long standing market operator Australia Pacific Exchange Limited (APX). You can buy and sell Emissions Commodities using the EETP after registering with an approved Broker listed on the ACX list of Registered Brokers. Only Approved Brokers can place orders on the ACX's EETP.
> 
> The first Emissions Commodities listed on the ACX are the Australian Greenhouse Office accredited Greenhouse FriendlyTM Approved Abatement known commonly as VERs. If you wish to sell VERs, you must have them registered with the ACX Registrar click here, in addition to registering with an approved Broker. Contact one of the approved Brokers listed on the ACX list of Registered Brokers and apply to become a registered client.Approved Brokers registered with the ACX can access the EETP and place bids and offers on behalf of their clients. To become an Approved Broker on the ACX EETP a Broker must meet the minimum requirement set down in the ACX business rules.




According to a report from Greg Peel on FNArena 
Carbon Trading Takes Another Step Towards Reality


> At midday today, the first trading in carbon emissions will occur on the Australian Climate Exchange, in a joint venture with the Australian Pacific Exchange based in Melbourne. The APX was established eight years ago and received a stock exchange licence in 2004.
> 
> The specific emission product traded will be the federal government-approved Greenhouse Friendly Voluntary Emission Reduction (VER) certificate. The contract will trade on a specification of 100 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.




Not sure if you can buy shares in ACX or APX?!


----------



## Out Too Soon (23 July 2007)

high mountain real estate


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 July 2007)

Herewith a couple of excerpts from magazinse about CFL compact fluorescent lightbulbs - and the fairly minor publicity given to the fact that they have mercury, and cannot be simply discarded in the rubbish.  

a) one is from treehugger
b) the other from another website, NPR , "CFL Bulbs Have One Hitch: Toxic Mercury"  

I understand that disposal of these is treated much more cautiously in Europe. 

Meanwhile Malcolm Turnbull continues to push them without this warning.  

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/05/ask_treehugger_14.php

ALSO :-
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7431198
http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf
etc etc 
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=cfl+and+mercury&meta=


----------



## purple (25 July 2007)

*GO the WOMEN! *

nothing really new, this inexorable shift towards going green, but still it's a very stong current.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business...r-businesswomen/2007/07/25/1185339058618.html

Environment a concern for businesswomen
July 25, 2007 - 3:39PM

Australian businesswomen list environmental concerns as a top priority, as the nation's financial landscape shifts to accommodate climate change issues.

A survey of 100 female business owners and financial decision-makers nationwide with an annual turnover greater than $2.5 million found that nearly 40 per cent said they would like to learn more about how their business could be more sustainable.

The findings, from a Westpac-commissioned survey, show that operating an environmentally friendly business runs only second to attracting and retaining quality employees in a wish list of skills sets that businesswomen would like to know more about.

Westpac's head of women's markets, Larke Riemer, says businesswomen are looking for ways that they and their companies can be more green.

"The business landscape is changing and our research is showing is that Australian women are leading the way in developing new models which incorporate a triple-bottom-line approach to financial, social and environmental responsibility," Ms Riemer.

In response to some of these interests of women, Westpac will host a "Learn, Lead and Succeed" seminar about women's business issues in all state capitals, except Perth, in August and September.

"Westpac's new business events were created to both celebrate the achievements of Australia's female business community and offer women in business a forum for exchanging fresh ideas and gaining new inspiration," Ms Riemer said.

Heather Rose is director of Green Team Australia, a communications agency specialising in travel, cause-related marketing, and "progressive" brands.

Ms Rose said he was not surprised at the results of the Westpac research.

She said that females and males with a large shareholdings in businesses had become increasingly more concerned about sustainability and climate change.

"This has been an area of growing concern for many people," she said.

Outgoing BHP Billiton chief executive Chip Goodyear said recently that "the green debate is over, and climate change is the great issue of the times".

Ms Rose, who was named one of BRW's magazines top 50 female entrepreneurs in 2006, said the move by big businesses towards tackling sustainability was not an emotional or moral decision, but a business one.

"We have looked at a new target market called the awakening consumer," she said.

"Our latest research out of America shows that 49 million consumers are now what we call awakening consumers, that is, they are awake and making decisions to spend their money with companies that have a brand and practices that reflect that they care for the environment.

"It is now becoming fully integrated into the core branding and messaging of Australia's leading companies."

Ms Rose will be speaking at Westpac seminar around Australia.

"I am delighted that the conversation of sustainability has become so top of mind for so many people," she said.


----------



## purple (28 July 2007)

Interesting to note the financial institutions buying into various renewable energy stocks :

Barclays – ORG – 6.37%
JP Morgan – ENE – 16%
Credit Suisse – CFU – 4.92% 
Merrill Lynch – BBW – 7.88%
Goldman Sachs – EDE – 5.2%

Interesting also to note Sandhurst Trustees took up a substantial holding in GRK while dropping their substantial holding in TEY. 

I note that none of the geothermals have a financial institution behind them…it might be too much toread into just an occurrence like this, but it might be that they find the industry still in its grassroots level.


----------



## purple (28 July 2007)

Here are tables showing renewable companies and their substantial holders, some might not have the latest change eg. EDE having the share placement last 2 weeks :


----------



## purple (9 August 2007)

geothermals hit hard during this correction, down off their year highs at an average of 38.70%. investors ditching this industry due to its being lesser known. 

say for example in comparison with Iron Ore, the average of Iron ore plays off their year highs are about 27.32%.

overall the green energy sector suffering with the rest of the market. 

seems like a good time to buy but I'm already into 3 of the greenies.


----------



## nioka (9 August 2007)

Global warming affects more than power generation. LYC,a company develloping a rare earths mine will benefit greatly as it's product is used in many power saving devices. LYC is one of the very producers outside China. ( check out the LYC Lynas Corp thread.)


----------



## purple (9 August 2007)

Yep Nioka

I'm with you on LYC all the way..

We’ve seen what the Defence Force need for green energy can do with DYE – more than 20% up. Now wait till all the IPods, defence technology, hybrid cars and another gazillion gadgets needed for life in the 21st  century start placing orders for LYC’s  rare earth ore in a tightening supply situation. 

And then LYC will be waiting there with its maiden production in 08.  oh wait, to memory already 30-40% of LYC’s production is already snapped up by a forward sale, and more to happen soon.

still have my portfolio 60% weighted on LYC.


----------



## Nicks (13 August 2007)

GTP stands to reap the benefits of Carbon Credits trading and Governmental incentives for green companies. Lets not be mistaken here people, the carbon credits trading is going to be HUGE, billions and bllions of dollars. Companies like GTP will make a fortune as other non green companies need their carbon credits to trade.


----------



## Aussiejeff (17 October 2007)

POO CAN SAVE THE PLANET

October 17, 2007 09:22am

"A CHEAP system to recycle human waste into bio-gas and fertiliser may allow 2.6 billion people in the world access to toilets and reduce global warming, an Indian environmental expert says...."

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22600540-5005961,00.html

C'mon Aussie, C'mon! Now here is an opportunity for a savvy Company to DIVE IN and PROSPER from the POO REVOLUTION! 

Apparently, ***t don't stink ALL the time....

LOL (seriously),

AJ


----------



## billhill (21 November 2007)

This is thinking outside of the box in terms of carbon emissions. Interseting to see if it goes anywhere.



> Oceans Could Slurp Up Carbon Dioxide To Fight Global Warming
> ScienceDaily (Nov. 20, 2007) ”” Researchers in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania are proposing a new method for reducing global warming that involves building a series of water treatment plants that enhance the ability of the ocean to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
> 
> About 100 such plants -- which essentially use the ocean as "a giant carbon dioxide collector" -- could cause a 15 percent reduction in emissions over many years, they say. About 700 plants could offset all CO2 emissions.




Obviously engineering companies would be the ones to benefit from construction of such plants.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071119112231.htm


----------



## wipz (21 November 2007)

CNM for sure, developing their CETO 'wave technology'. 
Used to produce zero emmission energy, or desalinate salt water to produce pure water with zero emmissions.
Already $5 million government backing.
DYOR interesting stuff lads.


----------



## awg (25 November 2007)

I am wondering what ASX stock is mostly closely correlated with manafacture of Solar Hot water systems. 

I have done a little research but cant seem to find out.

My rationale is that, to my understanding, one of the quickest and easiest ways to "reduce greenhouse emissions" is to install solar hot water, as this drops the baseload power demand by up to 20%

This means new coal fired power plants dont have to be built, just to keep up with increasing demand.

Now that we have a change in Govt, Kyoto to be signed,etc, Greens strong in Senate, probably means action may need to take place.

Examples: LPG vehicle installers have a waiting list, as do suppliers of water tanks. 

regards tony


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 November 2007)

awg said:


> I am wondering what ASX stock is mostly closely correlated with manafacture of Solar Hot water systems.
> 
> I have done a little research but cant seem to find out.
> 
> ...



I don't follow your argument that widespread use of solar HWS will drop baseload power demand by 20%. Household hot water is no more than 10% of total electricity consumption in Australia so the likely reduction from going solar is 6 - 7% not 20%.

Also, with the exception of Tas and NT most electric hot water in homes is off-peak and thus doesn't add to system peak demand. And many solar HWS aren't suited to off-peak boosting thus do add to peak demand, at least in those states (WA, SA, Vic) without extended hours off-peak tariffs. So it won't avoid the need to build power stations, if anything it will increase it, but it will save some fuel which is the benefit.

Agreed that with the politics something will be done. I'm expecting conventional electric HWS to be effectively banned nationally first for new homes (already are effectively banned in some states) and then for replacements. You probably won't be able to buy one by 2012 would be my best estimate.

Odds are 5 years from now the choice will be gas, heat pump, or solar with electric or gas boost. My expectation is that heat pumps will gain a large market share (greater than solar) due to comparable or better performance in many parts of the country and simpler installation. If the electric tank is outside as many are then it's a simple (relatively cheap) swap. Also there is less to go wrong. Gas instantaneous is also steadily gaining market share although it does have the downside of increasing water use.

I'd expect the domestic HWS market 5 years from now to be perhaps 40% gas, 45% heat pump, 15% solar or thereabouts. At the moment electric dominates - around 60%. Electric units will _probably_ still be legal in small sizes (up to 50 litre) for office tea rooms etc but I can't see that situation continuing for the ordinary household.

Expect a lot more regulation of appliances generally. The only really difficult one being air-conditioners. In hot locations they are the biggest energy consuming device available to the ordinary household. In a cold climate like Tasmania they are by far the greatest energy _saving_ device thus far invented and energy conservation is the sole reason they have become popular there. Everything else is pretty straightforward though.


----------



## arminius (25 November 2007)

for mine, 
silex: cutting edge solar tech, cheap nuclear enrichment.

dye: massive future

ede: has a solution for smog, and some hot rocks.

lyc: ree

arw: has copped a flogging but im sticking with em.


----------



## So_Cynical (25 November 2007)

ENE Energy Developments Limited

Energy Developments is a leading independent electricity producer, owning 64 power generation facilities 
across Australia, the United Kingdom, Europe and the United States.  

As at 15 Nov 2007 ENE had a total installed generation capacity of 545 MW, The Company was founded in 
Australia in 1988 and was listed on the Australian Stock Exchange in 1993.

Landfill gas, Remote area and LNG/CNG power generation, Coal mine methane power 
generation, *Produced 2,464 GWh of renewable or low GHG emission energy* worldwide.

*Captured and utilised GHGs (Green house gases) estimated at 8.5 million*
 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent from its LFG and CMM projects around the world.

Retained healthy cash reserves of $98.6 million at 30 June 2007 and
achieved net profit after tax (excluding specific items) of $27.1 million.

Some of Energy Developments customers are AGL, Anglo Coal, BHP Billiton, Horizon Power, Npower, 
Power and Water Corporation and Xstrata, and corporatised government bodies such as 
state-based energy retailers.


----------



## Col Lector (25 November 2007)

nioka said:


> Global warming affects more than power generation. LYC,a company develloping a rare earths mine will benefit greatly as it's product is used in many power saving devices. LYC is one of the very producers outside China. ( check out the LYC Lynas Corp thread.)




NAV worth a look if you are looking for rare earths...currently proving up a resource. Gold also in the stable.
LNC primary focus on Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) but very interesting ann. out late last week re "bioreactor" plans whereby utilise algae to convert Co2 to o2. Reckon they have the potential to fit this to existing Co2 polluters as well as their planned UCG projects.
Gas-fired powerstations will take priority over existing coal-fired...Coal seamers as a feed for these will benefit. AGL & Babcock & Brown seem to be headed for a competition to secure the key assets...
& dare I say.....AJL


----------



## Col Lector (25 November 2007)

Col Lector said:


> .
> Gas-fired powerstations will take priority over existing coal-fired...Coal seamers as a feed for these will benefit. AGL & Babcock & Brown seem to be headed for a competition to secure the key assets...
> & dare I say.....AJL




AJL represents vertically integrated exposure to CSGas industry. They will have 58 drill rigs in operation this year..on their own projects & involved providing services to a wide range of other CSG players and coal miners as well (see Chairmans address last week). These drill rigs/services are in high demand



> CSG's East coast promise
> Article from Courier Mail:  Tony Grant-Taylor
> November 19, 2007 11:00pm
> READ Holland reckons coal seam gas explorers have really only begun to scratch the surface in eastern Australia, despite industry growth.
> ...


----------



## The Trooper (27 March 2008)

Also consider waste companies. Companies whom treat others waste in a manner that reduces greenhouse impact may be eligible for carbon credits. One real consideration is treatment of refrigerant gases as these have a carbon equivalent many thousands of times that of carbon dioxide. There is currently a government review of the whole process and a paper on recommendations in relation to Kyoto expected mid-year. Expectations are that any system for credit exchange could be in place by 2010.


----------



## woltage (24 May 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Herewith a couple of excerpts from magazinse about CFL compact fluorescent lightbulbs - and the fairly minor publicity given to the fact that they have mercury, and cannot be simply discarded in the rubbish.
> 
> a) one is from treehugger
> b) the other from another website, NPR , "CFL Bulbs Have One Hitch: Toxic Mercury"
> ...




CMA Corporation (CMV) have just opened the first EPA licensed mercury recovery plant in Australia

http://imagesignal.comsec.com.au/asxdata/20080314/pdf/00823109.pdf


----------



## Aussiejeff (4 July 2008)

Well.

The BIG DAY of the Garnaut Report has arrived. Let's see where this (and the Government's response) takes us .... and the companies of Australia! 


*tick, tick...*



AJ


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 July 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> Well.
> 
> The BIG DAY of the Garnaut Report has arrived. Let's see where this (and the Government's response) takes us .... and the companies of Australia!



It will be doomed to failure if it doesn't tackle both emissions AND peak oil / peak gas at the same time.

Much of the mainstream thinking on how to fix the issue, and the low costs implied, assume unlimited oil and gas thus enabling an easy switch from coal. Do the math and you'll soon realise it's nowhere near that simple.

Any serious solution ulitmately needs to address the question of population as well. The present level seems way too high to sustain without ongoing oil input to agriculture especially.

Meanwhile, there's a record cold snap in central Tasmania... http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/04/2294118.htm


----------



## Aussiejeff (5 July 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> Well.
> 
> The BIG DAY of the Garnaut Report has arrived. Let's see where this (and the Government's response) takes us .... and the companies of Australia!
> 
> ...




*Ss-s-s-s-s-p-u-t-t-e-r......f-i-z-z-z-l-e* 

Now we little mushrooms must wait in the darkroom until the end of August for the next *exciting* episode....

AJ


----------



## billhill (9 October 2008)

interesting report about increase in disease zones should global warming occur. Guess some pharmacuetical or biotech companies may benefit.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081007073928.htm


----------



## Sean K (8 January 2022)

Has anyone found a way to invest in Carbon Credits?

KRBN looks like it's going very well but it's on the NYSE.





__





						KRBN - KraneShares
					

The KraneShares Global Carbon Strategy ETF (KRBN) introduces a new measure for hedging risk and going long the price of carbon while supporting responsible investing.




					kraneshares.com
				




I've got a feeling investing in Carbon Credits is going to continue to be a good move for a number of years.


----------



## Dona Ferentes (8 January 2022)

Primary ExchangeNYSENet Assets$1,743,785,698Total Annual Fund Operating Expense0.78%Inception Date7/30/2020


----------



## Sean K (4 March 2022)

I still haven't found the best way to invest in carbon credits on the ASX. No suggestions?


----------

