Global warming - Best Companies

[Freeballinginawetsuit]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Hahahaha. That just says it all...

 

[billhill]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

- 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.

> 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 . . .