Wouldn't it be a good idea to pull STP from US markets where hedge funds seem to have ben given a free ride by the corrupt ruling elite and start trading in a more transparent country?
"suffice it to say the earth has a way of taking advantage of imbalances, and returning the system back to a steady state again"
Yes but without human beings, or just a very few specimen.
That's because you're an Obama loving, freedom hating Commie who wants us to stay addicted to foreign oil!!! Solar is not efficient yet. Buy nuke utilities and nuke processors, and end our addiction to oil from countries who hate us!!!
you didn't know we were and are destroying forests and cutting down trees faster that we can plan them? In third world countries forests are almost gone, the rich countries have to pay them to stop the cutting!
I could not say it better, esp. with my broken English! One of the must successful method I use which I call RESULT...let me illustrate it to the point: Talk is cheap and both side can argue all day and night, but I can come in and see who is right by looking at the results... Here is the result - We are are practically still in recession for many folks (yes I know the official is we are out and in early recovery phase) and yet oil is almost $100 here check http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/
in previous recession oil would drop back to $20 - $38 and stay there for a period of time, and this recession is the worst one if not depression, and yet oil stay in the $80 and start to move higher and will be above $100 in early 2011...why? For the reasons small discussed above. China alone has become an economic power in term of oil demands. It was not noticeable before but now China demands more than 30% of the world demands! and if it keeps growing at this pace (do you why not?) then soon it will demand more than a third of the global oil production!!! China declare Alternative Energy, with the emphasis on solar and wind as a matter of National Security!!! The Europeans know and they moved quick, but the US we are getting overly confident in politics and not looking at the numbers! You don't have a genius, just look at the results they never lie!!!
Several studies done decades ago predicted peak oil production to occur by now and the primary study many look at was completed by an oil industry expert ages ago. Peak oil uses a skewed bell curve so whoever wrote we would run out by now has trouble understanding the basics of peak oil. There will always be oil to find but the conventional easy oil is going fast(most in about 20 years) with not much more to be found. Prices go up as we have to explore the ocean, the Arctic, and use tar sands.
The key to peak oil beginning its downward slope (on the bell curve) is economically producing oil without the supply side being to small without damaging global economies. This is not going to happen with driving demand and for remote supplies. Proven oil reserves in Canada have a couple hundred years of life at current draw rate but conventional oil production is 3%. The other 97% includes drawing oil out of tar sands which is much more costly and even the oil companies that drew a line against producing the heavy polluting and costly refinining of the heavy oil have crossed that line. EIA's supply chart reflects a relatively steady supply of oil for meeting demands many years out but it seperates conventional production which shows a major drop off being replaced by unconventional. The chart shows ever increasing total energy demands and oil can't meet all the demands.
Spiking prices from moving towards costlier oil will put a damper on global economies. The point that we are going to an extreme environment, the Arctic, to obtain oil supplies should indicate we are at or soon approaching peak oil in the sense of globally viable economics.
Our current demands for energy is not the issue. It is mushrooming energy consumption demands by countries who are seeing vast increases in standard of living - Largest culprits being China and India or BRIC - that will exacerbate the issue.
It is easy to forget real life in the midst of money!
But you're right, the economics absolutely favour renewables regardless.
The argument about fossil fuels running out, so don't worry, to me, is a bit of a myth. I have heard reports saying that oil will run out in under a decade or so (or reach peak oil) for the last 3 decades. We never get there.
Who knows how much might be found near the Arctic?
You're right about nuclear.
Have a great holiday too!
You bring up coal, another finite fuel. 5% growth in consumption per year and we take the coal supplies to under 90 years vs. well over 1000 at a flat rate consumption and China is trying to make 5% growth look like chump change even as they fight pollution.
No, plants have always been around and they did not and are not taking up the slack, CO2 is accelerating it's rise regardless. There are 2 factors, man's emissions and man's destruction of the CO2 sinks such as plants (forests, desertification and oceans).
Burning oil that is 60 million or more years old and putting the CO2 back is changing the atmosphere unnaturally and dangerously. How much damage depends on when we stop. Stop soon and we suffer a bit, stop later and we suffer a lot, stop much too late, and man will be extinct.
Yes, plants take in CO2 and put out oxygen. They will be fine in a high CO2 environment.
But, man is not plant. Man reacts differently to plants to high CO2...
280 ppm - Atmospheric CO2 in 1850
381 ppm - Atmospheric CO2 in 2006
350 - 400 ppm - fresh air
500 - 600 ppm - NYC/LA on a muggy day
<600 ppm - few indoor air complaints
1,000 ppm - Inadequate indoor ventillation
>1,000 ppm - discomfort in 20% of occupants
2,000 ppm - significant discomfort in >50% of occupants: Headache, Nausea, Reduced activity level
4,000 ppm - cigar bar
5,000 ppm - OSHA limit for adult 8-hr work day
30,000 ppm - 10 minute exposure limit
40,000 ppm - immediate danger to life
45,000 ppm - human exhallation
80,000 ppm - unconsciousness in a few minutes
960,000 ppm - Atmospheric CO2 on Mars
As you see, the effects begin in under a century. Indoors, CO2 higher, anywhere between 0 - 750ppm more CO2.
Today, a preliminary EIA report suggests that US emissions are set to rise 15% by 2035. (http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/12/17/eia-us-sees-15-increase-in-co2-emissions-by-2035/)
Still coal at the forefront in 2035 with renewables rising the most.
Coal plants last perhaps between 40 and 100 years, it would be a brave politician that shuts them down before end of life. One built in 2035 will likely not be decommissioned until near the middle of the next century, guaranteeing emissions for decades, or another century, to come. We don't have many centuries left on our current path.
In other words, we are almost certain to get above 1000ppm. To avoid that, we would have to act aggressively because the task is enormous.
The solar PV industry seems to us to be getting bigger, but it is still only 0.02% of worldwide energy usage. It cannot suddenly become 1000 times bigger if in 2050 we realise that we made a mistake in not acting sooner.
Public opinion counts. The oil lobby knows it and spreads huge amounts of rubbish, like 'CO2 is plant food', to sway public opinion and halt clean energy in favour of risking human pain or human extinction and big oil profits in their liftime. Some would say that that is more than a little selfish, it is evil.
You guys can beat the warming/ice age drums all you want. It is a matter of energy economics. Exploding vehicle use in China and India. Demand growing for oil as conventional supplies dwindle. Do some homework on EIA estimated life of proven reserves. U.S. and Mexico are high annual producers but have current estimates of less than 10 years at current production rate vs. reserves. Shift that production to a couple high proven reserve nations and those get taken from near 100 year supplies at current draw rates and it reduces them to ten years. Effectively in 20 years the supply of proven reserves is approaching the end of the bell curve. There is a reason Buffett predicted transportation would move to electricity in 20 years (I believe he stated that in 2009).
Exploration costs are already increasing oil prices as we move quickly towards more remote supplies. It will put a squeeze on global economies as we have wild gyrations in pricing due to supply and demand.
Sure OPEC can increase supply and push prices down but it will just accelerate the rate at which reserves are depleted. Peak oil is real and many world governments are starting to throw large amounts of money at alternative energy. Do some homework. U.S. opened that door in 2005 with DOE now providing research funding for just about any dreamed up possibilities of alternative energy. Have a sneaking suspicion the governments are using global warming as a cloaking tool for the real issue of finite fuel supply issues. The one source that keeps on giving energy is the best to move forward with - the sun (which provides for wind also). Once it quits giving then nothing else matters!
All other sources are finite and it annoys me when nuclear is pumped by others as an answer to our problems. Uranium mining is estimated to have peak production in 2030 and then we would repeat that cycle of a finite fuel while we sit on the super toxic waste for generations upon generations. Let China build the heck out of reactors and they have to deal with their toxic waste.
I'll get off my soapbox now. Every have a great holiday season.
It is more complicated than that.
Even in markets where shorting isn't allowed because securities lending is not authorized, hedge funds will still 'simulate' the process through synthetics.
In other words, in basic shorting, a stock is located, borrowed and sold.
In naked shorting, the stock is not located, but sold anyway hoping to be found later. Various techniques exist in the case where the stock is not found to effectively allow them to never locate an actual stock.
Lastly, there are synthetics. In this case, the underlying security is sold, and the parties enter into a swap agreement which simulates the actual returns as if a normal short had been created, including fees.
In essence, using these three mechanisms, shorting can create unlimited interest in the down direction and apparently are all legal in the US,even when applied to foreign markets in which they are not. In short (pun?), if you have enough money, you can drive the price anywhere.
However, it is not all bad, the problem that they have is the danger of the fundamentals rearing their ugly head, which they will.
In the case of solar PV, the fundamentals are very strong even with the huge assaults piled on them by the oil/coal/gas lobby to block their development, to deny that the accelerating rise in CO2 forms any threat at all and very likely to directly intervene in the markets.
The irony is that we have witnessed many attacks where subsidies have been cut leading to huge market expansion, huge industry expansion and the lowering of solar costs, which creates more demand, more expansion and so on. Subsidies are our temporary friend for as long as they support the industries growth, not support industry prices at artificial levels.
Up to now, too much emphasis has been placed on Germany, but that is shifting and for the good. Many other countries are ramping up solar including the US. Lower subsidies will simply weed out higher cost producers in Europe and the US more quickly.
In a few years, the industry will be at grid parity for production everywhere. Simply put, the quicker the subsidies are cut within reason, the quicker that happens. It is a complete no-win for the fossil fuel industry, and they know it.