Global warming - Best Companies
- Thread starter billhill
- Start date
-
- Tags
- global warming
- Joined
- 20 October 2006
- Posts
- 704
- Reactions
- 0
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 technologysunboy said:
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 
- Joined
- 11 January 2007
- Posts
- 791
- Reactions
- 1
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."
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."
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.
I am sure Howard will do something similar in this regard.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,096
- Reactions
- 16,869
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.
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.
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
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
- Joined
- 7 October 2006
- Posts
- 877
- Reactions
- 0
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.
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.
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}
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...x?guid={AD415BB9-6D54-42F7-B3F5-061161B32D5F}
- Joined
- 7 October 2006
- Posts
- 877
- Reactions
- 0
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.
mmmmining 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.
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.
- Joined
- 7 October 2006
- Posts
- 877
- Reactions
- 0
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
Printing My Own Money
- Joined
- 1 November 2006
- Posts
- 4,636
- Reactions
- 3
Attachments
- Joined
- 25 July 2006
- Posts
- 987
- Reactions
- 0
One word, Greenough
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,578
- Reactions
- 12,705
That's just up the road from me and yup, it blows all the time!!!!!!Say that the breeze doesn't blow all the time to these trees, Lol:
