Registered User
Joined: 4/18/2005
Posts: 4,090
|
Just wanted to let you guys know about this one. I got in on 1/22 and started to bite my finger nails in this market. I had conviced my self to sell anything I get a proffit on but I think I'll hang on to this for a bit at least. Today seems stellar.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 12/14/2006
Posts: 3
|
wouldnt get in here personally but youre golden at this point, imo
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/12/2006
Posts: 296
|
Solar stocks were up good today.
ESLR = a moderate play due to its contract costs for polysilicon.
STP = the big China solar provider.
FSLR = manufacturer using its new thin film to achieve significantly increased efficiency of solar modules.
OCTL = nanotech manufacturer; integrates films of nanotech particles on glass surfaces to convert solar enery into electricity.
These will report qtrly earnings from 02/13-02/20. STP has been on an earnings tear for some quarters and this coming quarter will be no different.
Nanotechnology has the potential to deliver the world from its subservience to oil and solar is just a small but important player in the field.
It may be they are all advancing until earnings are reported, then they may fall. The talking heads will say at that time the earings news was already built into the price.
Or, they will keep advancing.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 9/22/2005
Posts: 849
|
if you look at ESLR with Tobydad's indicatot,
it may be on the verge of a significant move up.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 4/18/2005
Posts: 4,090
|
bcraig73450:
that is the hope
Kokoda, thanks for those.. I think we are seeing the begining of a shift in our major energy.. I think Oil will be around and dominant for a while but the gradual shift to other things is starting to happen.. as solar becomes more efficient, as fuel cells become more viable (GE recently made a big break through) Ethanol etc. Actually here in Rural Iowa they are marketing these corn burning stoves that burn cleaner than wood burning stoves.. are safer and cheaper to run for heating your home or hot water. It's kinda exciting time. Have you heard of XSUNX. They haven't Ipo'd yet.. but check their web site. I don't trade pink slips but they may make some noise when they do IPO.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/12/2006
Posts: 296
|
XSUNX previously ipo'd and has been around awhile. Now, I gave my prior info in a style that I had hoped you would discern that the two best solar stocks are STP and FSLR. As a position trade, these should be the only two solar stocks (at this writing) one should own, or buy and sell if one prefers.
Stay away from XSNX - they do not have anything to offer, comparably.
Now for Corn: The following is in reference to the state of the union speech.
"What appalled most about the President's words were his proposals regarding alternative energies, particularly his emphasis on corn-derived ethanol. As a recent article in Scientific American pointed out, turning corn into ethanol is a non-starter. Corn is just far too expensive to use for fuel. If we try, we will only drive corn prices up to unaffordable heights. Soaring corn prices would in turn mean soaring prices for beef, chicken, pork, and any other animal we currently feed corn to. Growing enough corn to satisfy our fuel needs would also take too much land and water. The result would be a fuel that cost more than gasoline. In fact, some have argued that it takes more energy to produce ethanol from corn than burning ethanol would produce.
Now, if ethanol were made solely from corn stalks and otherwise wasted plant materials, it might make sense. But that doesn't look like the policy we're getting.
Instead - and we hate to say this - the President's plan seems geared towards winning votes from farmers in the mid-West who would benefit from outrageously high corn prices. It may make good political sense. But it will NOT meet our need for affordable energy.
We cannot help notice the strange logic that dominates this issue. On the one hand, the world powers are willing to go to tremendous lengths and costs to secure oil supplies, yet when it comes to other energy sources, the efforts made are never more than half-hearted. The people of the future may well wish that today's leaders had spent less money fighting wars for oil, and more money developing sustainable alternatives."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal: I have tons of disrespect for Hollywood liberals, but Sally Struthers has it right: If we spent taxpayer $ (or taxpayer debt from Gov't borrowing) on alternative energy that we now spend for war, we would have a solution for oil. Gov't could close bulging federal dept.'s to obtain funds (Reagan promised to eliminate the dept of education and of course he didn't). A flat tax (without the value-added component) would be fair to everybody and virtually eliminate the IRS. The list is long, but no matter what party is in office, nothing will change until the rubber hits the road - it is already too late.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/28/2005
Posts: 6,049
|
kokoda
Ill be kind. The comments on ethanol ring less than sincere.
(maybe from someone who's afraid of losing farmers
votes)
The truth is the government has solved very little.
(Sally Struthers can throw all of our money at it as
long as she likes. We would have a few more bureaucracies.
Some more paid political hacks, lots of "study's" underway,
but I think no energy solution)
What ever our "solution". It will be through capitalism
and the free markets.
The trouble with all "solutions" that are "analyzed". Is they
use today's benchmarks.
(remember when a computer was something that filled a
basement, the average person had no hope of owning
one, and ran off of thousands of vacuum tubes?)
All "analysis" leaves out cost reductions from mass
production and competition.
Thanks
diceman
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/12/2006
Posts: 296
|
diceman
I'll be kind.
The ethanol statements are all true and only touch the tip of the iceburg on the folly of ethanol as any type of temporary savior. Also, take a look at corn futures in the last two years. The long quote from my post above was printed in an article from a Mr. Stephen Leeb. You can do research and check his bio - I have come to highly respect his insight and he has enormous knowledge on the energy patch. So, you couldn't get me to believe Leeb was duped by someone else's article when he knows the subject cold anyway. Also, do you think the "Scientific American" is a political rag?
Using "free market captialism" as a means to compare manufacturing of widgets/gadgets/etc. to providing a replacement for oil is ludicrous.
Nothing on this planet contains even remote attributes/properties as oil. It is irreplaceable until either energy from the sun can be harnessed to provide the replacement for the ever increasing world population, or nanotechnology to the rescue. Oil powers the entire world economies in every facet of everday human life. Every manufactured product,including food, clothing, housing, durables, consumables, etc. utilizes oil in their process. And, some items consume even more oil after mfg. in their daily use. And oil is consumed to produce more bbl of oil and natural gas.
Some not too distant years ago, energy used to obtain 1 bbl oil was about 20:1; it is now about 4:1 and declining.
"Competition" was a good choice - I'll use it another way. The world's "have-nots" have been awakened and want to join the "haves". The real competition is for the remaining, accessible, cost effective to drill and pump, hidden oil.
Thanx,
kokoda
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/28/2005
Posts: 6,049
|
Stephen Leeb has written several books on the coming
"Oil Crisis". (kinda proves my point, certainly not a
neutral observer)
Maybe a better way to say it. If there is a solution to this problem
it will be thru science, capitalism and the free markets.
One thing I can guarantee with absolute certainty it wont be
thru government.
Remember we are not guaranteed a solution.(there was a time
when dinosaurs ruled the earth and we were not here. we have
no guarantees. Maybe it will come full circle and we will go
back the way of the caveman. we will do with out our cars, without
our industry.)
"Nothing on this planet contains even remote attributes/properties as oil."
Maybe that suggests our solution wont come from earth.
Throughout history every new idea was faced with doom and gloom.
The ability to develop new technology is completely underestimated.
Remember the "crux" of the ethanol debate is that "it" is the answer.
(generated by political and business agendas of today)
The truth is we probably don't know what the answer is.
Lets face it. the reason oil has been what it has is because its
cheap. There has been no motivation to do anything else.
I don't know what new technologies will be developed. I don't know
how much of the solution will be earth based. I don't know what
we may choose to do without or if it will be necessary.
I do know if history is a guide. We are completely underestimating
developments in science, technology and markets.
(being a caveman again is a great motivator)
I do know whatever road mankind heads down. It will be
infinitely more successful than government.
(which has an abysmal record of "fixing" anything)
By the way if we take the statement:
"Sally Struthers has it right: If we spent taxpayer $ (or taxpayer debt from Gov't borrowing) on alternative energy that we now spend for war, we would have a solution for oil."
It seems to set-up an interesting paradox.
There is no solution.
(except gov spending?)
"Nothing on this planet contains even remote attributes/properties as oil"
(unless government investigates it?)
People cant sole the problem.
(but the government can?)
Capitalism and free markets cant solve the problem.
(but the government can?)
It is as if you are arguing there is no solution to the problem
but government can solve it at the same time.
And lets remember military spending is only a small portion
of the budget. (politicians cant buy enough votes with military
spending) Which would indicate "energy issues" are
not even a big budget item.
Since you consider Stephen Leeb and Scientific American some
of the "experts" on this issue. I guess they know less than the
government (and Sally Struthers) because all we have to do is "spend" our war
money on the problem and it is solved.
Its just a simple fact that statements like Sally Struthers don't hold
up under the light of truth.
This all comes down to a simple set of conditions:
A) There is no solution.
B) There is.
If "A" is true than the government doesn't matter.
If "B" is true than its my contention almost anything
will do it more effectively than the government.
Thanks
diceman
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/12/2006
Posts: 296
|
I know about Dr. Leeb's books - I've read them and a number of others on energy, some with different viewpoints.
It seems your viewpoint is not to consider the advice of experts "(kinda proves my point, certainly not a neutral observer)". I have a solution - lets change our society to eliminate education so no one would have an expert opinion. This should resolve your problem - the only bias would then be ignorance.
It is widely recognized that gov't doesn't solve the problems, that it just creates a larger, unweildly, bureaucratic monster.
My point, which I think you missed, was not that the gov't should instigate an all-out effort, a war that we must win, on the energy independence issue (and I think they should). The point was that if we are currently spending trillions unwisely year after year, lets redirect those funds to a much wiser, and absolutely imperative need. We can even achieve new trillions by "restructuring" our gov't - as I pointed out earlier.
If J. Carter had kept his "promise" to the American people, we would be oil independent today; but oil fell to $10/bbl so the issue fell to the trashcan. He may be the nicest guy one would ever want to meet, but he was a terrible President and his inaction in the Middle East was a prelude to the dilemma today.
On a personal note, I am and have been a registered independent for 35 years. I am apolitical - I find it disgusting that most of our elected leaders in Washington service themselves and their parties, NOT the American citizenry. I voted mostly Republican in the last two elections and I support the efforts in Iraq/Afghanistan - taken as a means to prevent worldwide economic meltdown.
Thanx,
kokoda
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/28/2005
Posts: 6,049
|
kokoda
I don't know if I mis-read your statements but you
seemed to indicate there was no solution. At the same
time government is the solution.
In my mind those two positions cant co-exist.
"If J. Carter had kept his "promise" to the American people, we would be oil independent today"
A lot of money would have been spent. A lot of
bureaucrats would have been created.
I'm not so sure about a solution.
I'm sure you have heard of the term "government waste".
If there is truth to the government solution. There are
all types of Government waste that can be cut to "fund"
it.
The problem I have with the Sally Struthers position is
She decides what should be cut and what is waste.
(the defense of the country)
She decides what our enemy will do.
(it will be no problem at all)
(my guess is she is against all war and for world peace.
Nice idea, its just never worked yet. There is always
an enemy that's not on board with the program)
There is no reason that a strong defense and solutions
to problems cant co-exist. It is not a one or the other
situation.
(at least in theory, the real world has shown that
politicians want to buy votes, as long at that is the case
their view will be towards political victory and not
what is best.)
Thanks
diceman
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 3/25/2005
Posts: 864
|
QUOTE (scottnlena) As a recent article in Scientific American pointed out, turning corn into ethanol is a non-starter. Corn is just far too expensive to use for fuel. If we try, we will only drive corn prices up to unaffordable heights. Soaring corn prices would in turn mean soaring prices for beef, chicken, pork, and any other animal we currently feed corn to. Growing enough corn to satisfy our fuel needs would also take too much land and water.
I have heard the above before, and it is just common sense to me.
QUOTE (scottnlena) In fact, some have argued that it takes more energy to produce ethanol from corn than burning ethanol would produce
I have also heard this one and I believe it. The energy, I heard, required to produce ethanol is Natural Gas (lots of it).
I have also heard that there are problems associated with maintaining
ethanol at the gas pump. The problem has something to do with water
retention inside the gas/ethanol mix for E-85 gasoline -- Another,
expense necessary in terms of equipment to eliviate this problem.
Given all of the expense that can be incurred by using ethanol as an
alternative fuel leaves alot to be desired. As such, I really don't
think ethanol will have a prolonged future. Besides, I like my corn
on the cob. I don't want to have to pay $10 a bite for it though.
And, I think that others will agree. You're looking at a corn-inspired
backlash in the future if people who just want to eat the corn can't
afford it -- We need to keep looking. Solar and Electric seem like
more likely future alternatives at this point. IMO.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 3/21/2006
Posts: 4,308
|
GE and PLUG are teaming up to build self sufficient power cells to fulfil the electricity needs for individual homes..
The future of our Energy needs I believe will lie with this type of inovation, along with electro magnetic and Nano technologies..All of wich will come through Capitalism & free markets.. I agree with Diceman on this.
Didn't they try to introduce some type of alcohol gas back during our last gas shortage of the late 70's early 80's
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 4/18/2005
Posts: 4,090
|
WOA! such a strong reaction for such a simple remark about a stock! I didn't intend to start a fist fight
However it is undeniable fact that ohter technologies are making inroads on the power of big oil. jSolar is becoming more efficient and IN New Jersey at least there are all kinds of tax cuts and kick backs for homes going off or partially off grid. IN Iowa at least People are buying these corn burning stoves... they are safer than wood and more efficient and the cattle feed corn gets dumped in huge piles out here and good portions of it rot. FACT.... look out my window. And to be honest I'm all for anything that will take us away from the foreign oil addiction.
As far as politics goes, I think part of our plight concerning our defense spending is a product of our own making, and our imperialistic actions. But this forum is not for that. However those of you interested might be interested in reading "rise and Fallof the great Powers" (or empires.. I forget) by Paul kennedy. some eye opening arguments about the connection between military spending and life of a nation. Scard the hell out of me. but hey I'm sorounded by academics, and listen to NPR and WNYC and am admittely left wing. but a good argument makes sense when it makes sense.
Also some of you are miss quoting me.
hey I'm here to talk stocks and try to become a better TA. That is it.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/28/2005
Posts: 6,049
|
scottnlena
What you have to understand is there are certain things
that are so wrong it is the equivalent of saying:
"2+2=17" It isn't about politics. Its about right and wrong.
It shouldn't matter if you listen to NPR. It shouldn't matter
if you are "left-wing". 2+2 cannot equal 17. It cant if you
are a democrat, a republican, or independent.
Remember war has been around since man walked the
earth. It was here long before democrats and republicans.
It will be here long after they are gone.
In my view the statements by Sally Struthers are the equivalent
of: 2+2=17.
The real truth is Sally Struthers statements are political and
have nothing to do with alternative energy. (something that is
probably very low on her agenda) It is just the convenient
vehicle to bash what she does not like.
The "game" of politics is to get someone to vote for you.
You do that by saying you have the solution.(and the
other side does not)
However when looked at by the facts. Someone is
usually disingenuous, lying or extremely naive.
The real truth is there is a lot more common ground between
political parties than is portrayed. (they don't want you to
know that so you will vote for them)
Thanks
diceman
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 4/18/2005
Posts: 4,090
|
Well since we are talking politics, yes there is allot of common ground .. to much. I pick democrat becasue it is in my opinion ... at least most recently, the lesser of two evils. I would love to see this country develop more legitimate parties. We have them yes but they will never do anything.. they wind up being courted by the big two. I find it hilarious that the USA touts democracy around the world when we have the fewest number of legitimate parties in comparison to FUNCTIONING true democracies.
I wanted to see the last presidential election decided by pistols at two paces but Karey made sense to me and Bush did not. I am a world traveler and have family in europ and see a borader global view... or so I feel.
I have never heard of this woman you are mentioning.. I only check financial news, I hate the rest unless it is something local and cute, weddings, so and so's pig got out and crapped on the mayors porch etc. I get to worked up.
I find also in political arguments that "wright and wrong" are pretty ambigiuous and tend to shift. That goes for me as well. I was sold on this current war by watching Cspan and testimonials of a Dr. Hamza.. go find him now... haven't heard anything about his profesional opinion reguarding WMD's in Iraq.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 3/21/2006
Posts: 4,308
|
Archie Bunker might roll over in his grave if he knew what his little girl was up to now...
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 4/18/2005
Posts: 4,090
|
sorry perpetual war for perpetual peace was the title that I was thinking of.. also america last empire.. both by gore vidal who irritates me in that he hammers the same points over and over againg...but suposedly from an eyewitness point of view.. and his arguments make sense to I do get tired of listening to them though.
the rise and fall of the great powers by Kennedy was also good.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 3/21/2006
Posts: 4,308
|
Just one more point to make in reference to this lively debate..
What possible motivation does the government have in fixing any of societies ills,
We are fighting wars in the middle east to protect the tax revenues that the government recieves from the major oil companies.. Where would those tax revenues come from, If they spent money to research alternitive energy sources then they would be shooting themselves in the foot.
Like wise with the drug manufacturing cartells, the government does not want cheaper medicines for the poor, where would the tax revenues come from???
Just how I see it...
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 4/18/2005
Posts: 4,090
|
Brilliantly put.. never considered it like that either... Ok now I tire of this thread.
Still in ESLR by the way Two resting days. So far it is text book momentum entry for Technitrader.. except the tad of resistance above price here.. but resistance is eventually overcome.. and often dramatically in these cheaper stocks.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/28/2005
Posts: 6,049
|
The kindest thing I could say about Gore Vidal. Is
he makes Sally Struthers look like a deep thinker.
Apsll
Another point. the government doesn't want to fix our
ills so that we have a reason to vote for them.
That is why they want to control healthcare.
They "fixed" our healthcare. Then right after, demanded
we need a "patients bill of rights"
(Why? I thought you solved the problem).
Thanks
diceman
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/12/2006
Posts: 296
|
Apologize for being tardy; been evaluating new software for 2 weeks and it is extremely time consuming (day/night); mostly out of stocks, haven't updated T/C, etc.
diceman....I do appreciate opposing viewpoints - we all learn more. I did post a solution and it was for our country to engage in an all-out war for energy independence from oil (although oil will still be required) and the resulting benefits are very numerous. My specific best possible solutions were harnessing the power of the sun and nanotechnology.
My objection is thinking we can solve this through the normal capitalism process. We are not talking about inventing a toaster that turns on the pc and provides instructions to the mars rover vehicle.
scottlena......suggest you revisit an older Steve McQueen movie "The Getaway" and you can see Sally in action. For its time, it was a great action/adventure flick.
Yeah, I think this can be the end of the thread.
Good trading to all !!
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 4/18/2005
Posts: 4,090
|
you know I read about an energy source posibility from teh sun where it is focused to collecting dishes from satelites beamed to an earthside station and converted to microwaves then to electricity.. forget where I read about it.. seemed kinda star treky but aparently is was quite logistically possible.... I'm not shure that a stray satelite drifting across lower manhattan outputting billions of volts of microwaves will pass congress though.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/28/2005
Posts: 6,049
|
Quote:" I did post a solution and it was for our country to engage in an all-out war for energy independence from oil "
The "problem" is people cant decide:
Who the "General" will be who commands the war.
Who the "army" will be that fights the war.
Who will pay for the war.
What are they fighting for.
(as always the devil is in the details)
Thanks
diceman
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 3/25/2005
Posts: 864
|
QUOTE (apsll) 'the government does not want cheaper medicines for the poor, where would the tax revenues come from???'
.
I have been an advocate for a National Sales Tax for many many years
now. I say we do away with the IRS Tax Code for individuals and just
have it apply to businesses only.
The individual, on the other hand, will pay all the taxes the
government will need via the purchases he/she makes on a day to
day basis.
As a result, the individual is deciding how his/her money will
be allocated from his/her pay check to pay the government via
the way he/she as a consumer chooses the goods and services he/she
will pay for. No paper work to turn in annually! How Sweet Is That!!!
And, just forget about the flat-tax all together, paper work as
well as complaints of having too pay much more than somebodyelse is having to pay is not worth the headache either.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/28/2005
Posts: 6,049
|
Anything would be better than what we have now.
The IRS tax-code is the poster child for "government
action."
Thanks
diceman
|
|
|
Guest-1 |