Clean Renewable Energy Companies

[Scaggsville]

If you think the next big revolution for our economy will be large scale renewable energy solutions, you would invest in companies dealing with same.

Which ones do you like?

Comments?

I'm looking at

nanosolar
esolar
siemens
makani power

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by Scaggsville

Which ones do you like?
esolar, nanosolar, makani power

siemens

the question to be explored is which of the 3 unknowns...
will be bought up by Siemens (or some other) and when.

[boink]

Originally Posted by Scaggsville

If you think the next big revolution for our economy will be large scale renewable energy solutions, you would invest in companies dealing with same.

Which ones do you like?

Comments?

I'm looking at

nanosolar
esolar
siemens
makani power

much of renewable energy is propped up by government subsidies, tax credits, grants, clean renewable energy bonds

take away the subsidies and much of this stuff flounders

If I were going to invest in any of this, I'd make sure the subsidies were going to be in place for the next several years

good site to keep track of government subsidies
http://www.dsireusa.org/

[Scaggsville]

Looks like all but Siemens from my list are privately held.

This looks helpful: http://www.greenchipstocks.com/

[where's earl]

I bought some Broadwind energy (bwen) it's a wind turbine company in Illinois range from 5-7 per share.

[Brohan]

Originally Posted by boink

much of renewable energy is propped up by government subsidies, tax credits, grants, clean renewable energy bonds

take away the subsidies and much of this stuff flounders

If I were going to invest in any of this, I'd make sure the subsidies were going to be in place for the next several years

good site to keep track of government subsidies
http://www.dsireusa.org/

Chinese gov't is very serious about renewable energy and has a massive amount of money to invest and are in fact doing it. They are being very progressive diversifying their economy.

IShares has a cheap ETF ICLN. I haven't made any money in the few month I've been invested but have a pretty long horizon.

Water is another long tern consideration...finite supply with growing demand.

[Eastside Terp]

Originally Posted by boink

much of renewable energy is propped up by government subsidies, tax credits, grants, clean renewable energy bonds

take away the subsidies and much of this stuff flounders

If I were going to invest in any of this, I'd make sure the subsidies were going to be in place for the next several years

good site to keep track of government subsidies
http://www.dsireusa.org/

that's a nice site, thanks.......

agree about the subsidies.....I would prefer to let the energy sources reflect their true cost and then let the market decide......

of course to make it an even playing field, emissions, etc. would have to be equal as well........

most people don't even realize how many subsidies there are.......

we all know about the proping up of solar, wind, etc. but the nuclear industry might not be viable without the The Price-Anderson Act and numerous other subsidies........

The Cato Institute

The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first $10 billion is industry-funded as described in the Act (any claims above the $10 billion would be covered by the federal government). At the time of the Act's passing, it was considered necessary as an incentive for the private production of nuclear power — this was because investors were unwilling to accept the then-unquantified risks of nuclear energy without some limitation on their liability.

[Kenect2]

"True cost?"

What's the true cost of the pollution caused by burning fossil fuels?

... Another study confirmed the importance of variations of pollution within a single city. Its findings suggested that a person’s exposure to toxic components of air pollution may vary as much within one city as across different cities. After studying 5,000 adults for eight years, the researchers also found that exposure to traffic-related air pollutants was more highly related to mortality than were city-wide background levels. For example, those who lived near a major road were more likely to die of a cardiovascular event.

Some research has estimated that people living in the most polluted U.S. cities could lose between 1.8 and 3.1 years because of exposure to chronic air pollution. ...

http://www.americanheart.org/present...dentifier=4419

[Eastside Terp]

Originally Posted by Kenect2

"True cost?"

What's the true cost of the pollution caused by burning fossil fuels?



http://www.americanheart.org/present...dentifier=4419

reading is fundemental .........

note my sentence about -

"of course to make it an even playing field, emissions, etc. would have to be equal as well........"

the cost to clean up the by products of the process has to be included......

[Evil_Eye_21201]

Originally Posted by Brohan

Chinese gov't is very serious about renewable energy and has a massive amount of money to invest and are in fact doing it. They are being very progressive diversifying their economy.

IShares has a cheap ETF ICLN. I haven't made any money in the few month I've been invested but have a pretty long horizon.

Water is another long tern consideration...finite supply with growing demand.

Cheap in terms of what?

Cheap is a relative term and ICLN is not cheap. If it doesn't make you money then it's costing you money. Oil needs to run up again to it's all time highs to make this thing take off.

This is invested in the Energy sector which is only a little better than banks right now. Banks are almost at the bottom of the investment return pile.

ICLN tracks the S&P index of the same. It holds 30 companies. My service tracks 78 Clean Energy companies of which only 5 are rated a buy. Half are sells and the rest are holds.

The whole market is weak right now. The Dow made another high but the volume has been dropping. That is not a good sign. The financials failed to make a new high. That is not a good sign either. Financials have been a leading indicator in recent years.

I would post a chart to illustrate but the intelligent people who run this site would delete it. No wonder this paper is going out of business.

[boink]

Originally Posted by Evil_Eye_21201

Cheap in terms of what?

Cheap is a relative term and ICLN is not cheap. If it doesn't make you money then it's costing you money. Oil needs to run up again to it's all time highs to make this thing take off.

This is invested in the Energy sector which is only a little better than banks right now. Banks are almost at the bottom of the investment return pile.

ICLN tracks the S&P index of the same. It holds 30 companies. My service tracks 78 Clean Energy companies of which only 5 are rated a buy. Half are sells and the rest are holds.

The whole market is weak right now. The Dow made another high but the volume has been dropping. That is not a good sign. The financials failed to make a new high. That is not a good sign either. Financials have been a leading indicator in recent years.

I would post a chart to illustrate but the intelligent people who run this site would delete it. No wonder this paper is going out of business.

Dow 10,000 year 1999 = Dow 13,200 year 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/bu...flation&st=cse

"...the Dow Jones industrial average first closed above 10,000 in March 1999. It retreated in the years after the dot-com bubble deflated, then retook 10,000 in late 2003 and peaked at 14,000 in October 2007. We all know the cataclysm that followed.

So Dow 10,000 does not mean that the market is finally edging ahead; it is simply catching up to where it was a decade ago. “It’s been a bad 10 years, a really bad 10 years,” said David Bianco, chief United States equity strategist at Bank of America/Merrill Lynch.

The constant march of inflation also dilutes the meaning of 10,000. Prices rose an average of about 2.8 percent each year in the last decade, meaning the Dow would have to reach about 13,200 in today’s numbers to equal its value then..."