From the story from Home Depot selling a lot of energy saving devices (like that twist light bulb) to Toyota and Honda cashing in on their Hybrid car sales......energy saving devices are selling well -- and that means profits for the companies that have them.
I think the interest in energy saving technology will continue to increase. The real race however is probably yet to come -- that is when the technology improves to such a degree that the cost for energy itself starts to drop rapidly.
hehe I actually implored my dad to invest in CSCO when I was in college in 1991 (unfortunately he didn't). And it wasn't just on a feeling.
It is only one of 2 stocks that I've recommended to my dad. The other was RATL when it was at pre split $10 a share.
I asked my network systems professor which company was the leader in internet router technology. He said that CSCO is the clear leader, with a few other competitors playing catch up. I knew the internet was going to explode in the next few years (though I didn't expect it to explode as fast as it did). I knew the hardware technology was there already. I knew the software technology was complex but definitely doable, and that only one company could really make the standard (similar to Microsoft). I also knew how addictive the internet was. I then told the class to invest all their money in CSCO :P.
My point is, BLDP's technology is not anywhere near as mature as CSCO's in 1991. I also believe that BLDP's product is only slightly addictive, even to those who are environmentally conscious. CSCO was inventing a whole new market. The market for fuel cells is already saturated with very cheap ICE's. BLDP will license its technology and sell its products to giant corporations like GM, Ford et al., and thus make a small profit margin. CSCO sells its products direct to customers via a great sales force, and thus enjoys huge profit margins.
Thanks for being up front with your remarks. I must admit that some posters on this board are rasing the victory flag far too early for me too just as you stated and I concer that the price of Ballard's stock is very high at this time.
As far as the price and quanities of platinum for fuel cell vehicles goes, I'm not focused on this issue at this time because I don't own any Ballard shares.
My money is on a company that is focused on making the hydrogen infrastructure and storage tanks that PEM fuel cells will need to operate. Plus the fuel cells that ECD are developing at this time will require no high costing noble- metal catalysts. I might make the suggestion that you look it over before its stock price goes beyond what you consider your reach.
I wish I would have invested in CISCO 12 years ago when a friend of mine did. His rationale was this: He thought the internet was going to be huge and he was passionate about it....one might say he invested with his "feelings."
Sure there is risk, but when the CEO's of FORD and BENZ both say that the fuel cell WILL replace the IC engine, one should listen.
I can understand a bit of your confusion at your remarks.
I am being extra caustic in my remarks in order to encourage your responses. People are more responsive when they are on the defensive. I wish you guys would be less emotional and more technical. On the other a couple of you guys have these crybaby responses that crack me up. You NEVER should invest in a stock for emotional reasons... it is the #1 way to lose all your money. I made that mistake when I invested in BUNZ because I was addicted to Schlotsky's sandwiches :P
Having said that, of all alternative energy sources, fuel cells are the most promising alternative energy source for automobiles. But, the technical challenges seem more and more enormous every place I look. Its very difficult to wade through all the pie in the sky news reports and get at the meat.
Ok, so, I would like to see some real analysis of how much platinum is needed for an automobile fuel cell which can deliver say 100kW of power (about 134 horsepower). The only data I've seen so far is 6 ounces of platinum for a 100kW FC engine. 6 ounces of platinum costs about $3600 @ $600 per ounce. The price of platinum will only go up as reserves dwindle.
The articles about the thin film technology don't have any mention that this technology will require less platinum per kW of power than is currently needed. It just sounds like a cheaper and cleaner manufacturing process.
Also, I'll bet you a dollar that catalytic converters don't require anywhere near 6 ounces of platinum. Someone prove me wrong :P
Why would you want to buy BLDP at $15.00 per share when you say that it's worthless?
It's like you want the stock price to do what you want it to do and you'll post messages pro or con until it does.
As far as the use of platinum in our vehicles goes, it being used on all cars today and it result in 20lbs. of CO2 emitted into our atmosphere for every mile driven. FCVs will elimate that CO2 emission that is causing global warming today, not even to mention all the other pollutants that are causing harm to our health today. This is why the auto companies are spending mucho dollars on this technology and why Ballard with the lead position is valued as high as it is.
I suspect that you already know this and I can't blame you for wanting to buy it at $15.00 per share as I would too.
<<<<The real race however is probably yet to come -- that is when the technology improves to such a degree that the cost for energy itself starts to drop rapidly. >>>>
The COST of the technology has to drop first. And even then, don't expect the cost of energy to be immune from market forces.
While some performance targets are being met for many components of a FCV, few of the cost targets for the components are in the ballpark yet. There is a FCV component cost chart somewhere showing the required reduction is costs of various components. If I can find it I'll post a link. I think it was a uscar,sae,or some other publication I saw last year. Anybody else recall seeing this chart or know where to find it? I'd like to see if it's updated.