|
I was wondering if it is at all possible that Oil companies are trying to manipulate solar companies, and overall, renewable resource companies from making money or even succeeding? Especially on the stock market and if Wall Street is also playing a helping hand. Does the Oil industry have that big of a reach and that powerful of a lobby that actually pay analysts to purposely cast negative opinions and outlooks? Or is it Wall St trying to make investors buy American Solar? I think they do as it not breaking news here in the United States to discover that Judges have connections to big Oil and so forth. Was reading up on renewable energy companies particularly Solar companies and this kept popping up the story focused on Italy possibly putting a cap(?) on Solar. As of right now Italy is the largest market for Solar Power.
From analyst Gordon Johnson of Axiom Capital:
Many firms are bullish on the Italian solar market, including Jefferies and Wunderlich. Axiom Capital, however, has different views on this market and believes that other firms are relying too heavily on solar lobbyists. The main issue of disagreement, according to Axiom's Johnson, is that the situation for solar companies in Italy will actually be worse, despite what Jefferies and other research firms might be leading investors to believe.
Source
The same analyst above predicted that revenues would be flat in 2010 as did Wall St:
Since the first half of 2010, the media has been helping manipulators by speculating that solar sales will be hampered. Solar sales were not hampered. They have soared in 2010.
Other companies that have been doubted by Analysts and Wall St is JASO but what hasn't been reported apparently, from comments:
JASO’s revenue grew by approx. 211% from 2009 to 2010, which is faster than almost all other growth companies, such as Apple, Netflix, Google, eBay, Amazon, Akamai, Juniper, Salesforce.com or Oracle.
JASO said revenue will increase by 50% in 2011 and 90% of 2011’s sales is already under contract. How many companies can say that? Not even the other growth tech companies can say that.
China Daily’s article that says JAOS will invest 13.5 billion Yuan ($2 Billion) to build the world’s largest production base because JASO expects China’s solar market is going to grow by several times to several hundred times in the next 5-10 years.
Let's go back to the same analyst just today:
The country’s Minister for Economic Development was apparently meeting with the environment Minister today. Gordon Johnson with Axiom Capital claims to have obtained a draft of the text of regulations coming out of that meeting.
Rather than showing a compromise, Johnson said today, the text seems unchanged from a version circulated over the weekend. The phrase “moratorium” is employed with respect to solar installations should an 8 gigawatt threshold be reached this year, Johnson claims.
The result:
What a surprise. Tiernan cites Gordon Johnson and intimates that there will be an 8 GW solar cap in Italy. And, once again, Gordon Johnson is wrong. Tiernan — you are a shill for the solar shorts. You clearly are not a journalist. Forget the spelling and grammar problems, you just don’t understand how to use a proper source. Good luck in your next job. Probably at Axiom?
Source
Apparently there wasn't a cap and all the fuss was made by the same group that sent Solar stocks down... It should be noted that the companies in the comments and stories usually are center around Chinese Solar companies in which China has become the biggest investor in Solar energy.
 
|
I think it's blatantly obvious that oil companies and politicians who benefit from oil companies have been working to slow down the growth and development of renewable energy such as solar power for a very long time.
The oil lobby has been strong for more than 100 years; big oil originated around the same time oil use in industry for energy production began, so the growth of both the power of the oil industry and the usage of oil itself have been inextricably linked.
It's true for most such businesses, really. It's just that in this case it has huge global ramifications, and the involved industries are so instrumental and powerful that they can get away with things that other companies could never dream of getting away with.
|
man, after reading this I remembered this movie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_Reaction_(film)
Don't open spoiler if you want to watch the movie
+ Show Spoiler +morgan freeman didn't want the whatever energy to progress due to the fact that Wall street or financial institutions would collapse because investments might be pulled out
Also, middle east would suck hard since it's the only resource that they can export to other countries,
|
Any chance an Oil company can manipulate the market to move in their favor, they will do it. They frack people's land and don't give a shit about their water. They deny they do anything wrong to the water, but still they settle out of court to replace their water supply once a week??
The reason is because there is free money in the ground. Natural gas is HUGE right now, and for the next couple decades, the money there will be exponential. For the sake of humanity, wind and solar should be researched and start replacing old technologies; all these intelligent people sell their souls for a buck. They know there is gas underground, and there is no point to go to renewable energy.
Until the reserves are bone fucking dry, there will not be a change. And during these horrible times, people and animals will die, water will dry up, and habit will be changed forever. At that point, why even switch?
Edit: oh ya, and if you think that encana and exxon collaborating with wall st is some 'hoax', there is overwhelming evidence everywhere. Just watch documentaries. Hell, I live in a province where all the small towns are becoming subject to fracking, and people can't drink their water, and can't go into certain areas that used to be beautiful; now full of smoke, chemicals you and I can't even pronounce, and not an animal in sight. Greenland is next, hopefully we smarten the fuck up before then.
|
Yeah, it's obvious. Oil is king. Any competition for energy technology is stifled, regardless of the pros and cons.
Edit: Geothermal is a great alternative if you're looking to get off the grid.
Edit2: Also, most of our whole societal structure is built in such a way that it makes money for the wrong reasons. Basically, humans can become damaged in many ways, and they can also be healed in many ways. What they don't tell you every day is how toxic our bodies can be as a result of the pollution we endure through the food, water, and air.
Excessive sugars and other unhealthy things are put into our food, unnatural molecules found in radioactive waste is dumped into our water supply (within [a small amount of] reason), and our air is polluted from industry. These damaging particles combine in ways that make disease and illness more common. Proof: diabetes and depression. Then, when the damage is done, you go to the doctor and buy pills that don't always work in an efficient way. In fact, a lot of medications have really harmful side effects.
I think about the dystopia far too much. If you would like to know more, PM me and I'll try to explain it in a page or two. The key thing you should remember is: buy a good water purification system, and try to eat foods that come directly from the earth as much as you can. Fruits > Vegetables > Grains > Fish > Meat. The food pyramid is bunk, instead eat from the preceding priority.
I intend to have a small farm later in life that I will hopefully be able to use as my main source of clean food.
|
No, not really. Solar is just not cost effective next to things like geothermal so I dont even consider it competition for Oil and Coal. Australia was the leader of solar manufacturing and research a few decades ago and it is still a leader in research today but all the manufacturing and companies are in china now. But even with their ecomomy of scale and investment solar isn't cheap enough for even personal use. You could get panels on your house for 20000 with subsidies before and even with the income you get from selling your electricity back to the grid you would never recover the money in a lifetime.
If you want to see manipulation you should look at what has been done with "Clean Coal". How they managed to get government funding for crap like that is beyond corrupt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal
|
I take it you are summarizing a hard-cap on solar in Italy represents some kind of conspiracy to keep the industry at bay? Frankly there is absolutely nothing really described in the sources that pertain to the decision about the hard-cap, that is, it could've been instituted for any number of reasons; reluctance to spend money due to high panel costs, not satisfied with the technology (conversion efficiency), worries about actual energy output because of those cloudy days, and so on.
But even as far the middle east is concerned, everything said about their markets and oil is true, however, solar can be just as viable for them considering the amount of sun they get, and land availability for use for solar generation. It is not hard to imagine these regions exporting huge amounts of energy created through solar power in the future.
Of course, the question remains just how far off that future is.
|
Calgary25954 Posts
On March 03 2011 18:54 Hellhammer wrote:
Hell, I live in a province where all the small towns are becoming subject to fracking, and people can't drink their water, and can't go into certain areas that used to be beautiful; now full of smoke, chemicals you and I can't even pronounce, and not an animal in sight. Greenland is next, hopefully we smarten the fuck up before then.
Do you sources for any of these claims? Because I live in the same province, have driven from Montana to Fort McMurray, and the exaggeration in your claims is astounding.
|
On March 04 2011 02:51 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2011 18:54 Hellhammer wrote:
Hell, I live in a province where all the small towns are becoming subject to fracking, and people can't drink their water, and can't go into certain areas that used to be beautiful; now full of smoke, chemicals you and I can't even pronounce, and not an animal in sight. Greenland is next, hopefully we smarten the fuck up before then. Do you sources for any of these claims? Because I live in the same province, have driven from Montana to Fort McMurray, and the exaggeration in your claims is astounding.
it's a real problem but yes there is some exaggeration in this post. it recently got some publicity with the film gasland
anyway back on topic your source says that they're just limiting subsidies to 8 GW.
Italy produces ~300 TWh/year which = ~34 GW
+ Show Spoiler + 300 TWh * (1000 GWh/TWh) / (365*24 hrs/year)
so basically the legislation caps solar subsidies if production rises above ~23% of current production levels. doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
edit: i took another look at that document and apparently domestic production was 42% renewables? HOLY SHIT that's ridiculous.
and of course my analysis above is for 2004, but the point stands that Italy limiting subsidies in the event that total solar production exceeds 8 GW is not that HUGE a deal.
|
Solar is never going to be a viable alternative to oil. The amount of real estate required to generate the power we use today with solar alone is ludicrous, and completely unacceptable when better alternatives (ie nuclear) exist. Other renewable alternatives like geothermal, waves, wind and so forth have either identical drawbacks or are hard limited in scope by their availability, on top of being significantly more expensive.
The only viable alternative for a long-term shift away from fossil fuels is nuclear, and the only viable alternative for extreme long term considerations is fusion, which requires more research money to go towards nuclear anyway.
Everything else is a pipe dream.
|
On March 04 2011 11:56 kzn wrote:
Solar is never going to be a viable alternative to oil. The amount of real estate required to generate the power we use today with solar alone is ludicrous, and completely unacceptable when better alternatives (ie nuclear) exist. Other renewable alternatives like geothermal, waves, wind and so forth have either identical drawbacks or are hard limited in scope by their availability, on top of being significantly more expensive.
The only viable alternative for a long-term shift away from fossil fuels is nuclear, and the only viable alternative for extreme long term considerations is fusion, which requires more research money to go towards nuclear anyway.
Everything else is a pipe dream.
don't talk as if you have to choose exactly 1 option. also, the amount of real estate for solar is really tiny, are you kidding? the issues are cost effectiveness and materials usage and transmission and intermittency.
|
You don't have to choose exactly 1 option, but it makes no sense to choose multiple options when one is clearly superior to the rest, and solar is massively real estate heavy compared to nearly every other option except wind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
