Monthly Archives: December 2012

Green Energy Stock In Free Fall


The Renewable Energy Industrial Index (RENIXX ®World), is composed of the world’s 30 largest renewable energy companies.  The 30 companies get the majority of their income from wind, solar, biofuel, geothermal, hydropower or fuel cells.  The stock index was set up  to allow the shareholder to profit by the expected surge in value of these companies as the green revolution unfolded. Unfortunately for the investors, the stock value which surged, peaked in the 2007 -2008 timeframe, has been a downhill ride since then.  The glib promises of the performance of these renewables has not materialized and the Nations that have heavily subsidized these renewables can no longer afford them.  
A Washington Times-Community posting authored by Steve Goreham titled “So, how’s your green energy stock doing?” discusses the history of the Index.  For instance,  in a private meeting, Al Gore impressed the Deutsche Bank Asset Management  team causing them to establish the RENIXX and the rest is history. One wonders how many investors have lost money believing that Gore knew some real science. On the other hand,  Mr Gore is rumored to have made $200 to 300 million himself selling carbon offsets and his stake in the Chicago Merc’s Carbon Market. He may be weak on science but he knows how to make a buck.
 
The posting is a good read that I recommend to you. The whole story with the chart of the Index’s rise and fall are in his article. Also he talks of the thirty companies,  of which 10 are headquartered in China, 10 in Europe, and 7 in the US.  Click here to read his posting.
cbdakota

Solar Cycle 24 Nearing Maximum


Solar Cycle 24 is nearing its maximum after which the solar activity will decline.     The maximum is often pegged as the time when the Sun’s  north and south poles swap. The chart below shows the current position of the poles. Projecting their current position suggests that the swap will occur early next year.
(Click on Charts to improve clarity)
december12Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now
    Solar Polar Field 1966 to Present –Wilcox Solar Observatory

Why Continue To Provide Subsidies For Electric Cars?


The Spark is Chevy’s new entry into the electric vehicle race.  Unlike the Spark’s big brother, the Chevy Volt, the Spark is all electric. (The Volt it is a hibrid as it has a backup internal combustion engine.)  Chevy has not specified a range with a full battery charge or a price.  But the Associated Press (AP) reports that the range will probably be like the Ford Focus—76 miles on a charge–and at a price less than $25,000 when the Fed’s $7,500 is deducted.  
 
What is wrong with this picture?  The gasoline powered Spark sells for $12,245 without any Federal subsidy.  So the production cost with profit (maybe) for the electric Spark is in the range of $32,000.  The gasoline powered Spark goes out of the showroom at roughly $20,000 less.  And even with the Fed Subsidy thrown in for the electric version, the gasoline version cost half as much.    
 
According to the Denver Post: “Since 2008, taxpayers have spent or provided loan guarantees of $6.5 billion for electric vehicles. That includes $2.4 billion for battery and electric drive component manufacturing, $3.1 billion in loan guarantees for electric vehicle projects, and $1 billion in tax credits for the vehicles.”
 
The Detroit News reports that GM plans to build 500,000 electric vehicles by 2017. Assuming they do this and sell that many cars,  you and I–the taxpayers are on the hook for $7,500X500,000= $3.750 billion.  And that would not include the subsidies given for sales of other manufacturer’s electric vehicles in that time period.  Suspending your view of the advisability of having subsidies for these cars in the first place,  do you think that if sales are that robust, they should continue to be given subsidies?  I don’t.
cbdakota