What makes you think these are NOT 'normal' circumstances? The price per share is what the entire market thinks it's worth is looking forward about half a year. All the optimists, pessimists, looking at the potential, looking at the debt, looking at the global economy, looking at the geopolitics...everything integrated into what someone is willing to pay and to what someone is willing to sell for.
I would argue that this is the 'correct' price per share until perceptions change...
I purchased my first third of my intended position just before close yesterday. Glad to join the current investors.
There is an article that helps explain how one can get to 60% cap factor windmills, but there are many caveats. I would suspect that only a very small percentage can achieve that. However, adding in compressed air storage to intermittent wind can make a huge difference and I believe this is a viable future option to making wind power a major portion of AE.
High Capacity Factor Wind Energy Systems
That being said, I must agree with missjhurt that the beatiiful west and central plains viewing areas are becoming forever damaged by the presence of moving, ungainly, white skeletal structures protruding above the ground that can be seen from 20 miles away. I hope PV solar can take a much higher fraction of energy harvesting than wind mills as we move forward...
Did the scientist note whether we have finished warming from the LIA yet. If we have, then we are still 1 degree cooler than where we were 10,000 years ago when we exited the last major ice age. Oh yeah...and then there is the question of why 0.6 degrees temperature has been added to the temperature record through 'adjustments' since 1945. What does he say about that?
And because you are continually so dense about such things, I never said that CO2 had no effect, said it was very little effect. Someday maybe you will remember that?
Shady? Self interest? Suppressing the price? Hypocracy?
Yes to all the above. And I didn't bring any politics into this.
Oh, yes... It's spelled hypocrisy.
Sure Soros believes the companies will survive, but he has been very active in dissing coal and supporting policies that have hurt coal companies and their product. He has organized blast faxes to have us support the administrations anti-coal campaigns, pushed legislation to support EPA regulations to tighten CO2 emissions, push for additional emission controls specifically designed to hurt coal production and combustion, underwritten green foundations and generally financially supporting candidates that push climate alarmism.
But all of a sudden he finds coal producers so attractively priced that he spends a small fortune to acquire their stock? No blue, it is not a conspiracy theory. Soros was very active in suppressing the price of coal stocks and now hypocritically, and calculatingly, he has helped engineer a great entry point for a large investment.
I'm not saying this was 'illegal', but it sure shows how shady this man can be when it serves his self interest.
Coal use is expected to expand significantly in ROW, even if cut back in the US, for many years to come. I think the US will end up shipping a lot of our coal overseas. I don't think there are many restrictions against doing so. Buffet expects his new railway to be a big recipient of shipping coal from the interior of the country to the coasts for export. Soros possibly sees a beauty of a time to by the coal companies now that they are down 80+% (especially as he has been bad-mouthing coal for two years. Couldn't be any market manipulation here, could there...)
I don't know, but that pesky hydrogen that used to be bonded to the firefighters harmless oxygen in their water decided to bind with the carbide carbon instead and created a load of acetylene gas that likely fueled part of the later explosions. So a rather large amount of hydrogen was involved I would guess...
Yes, that's my take, too. The inter-country grid, shared primarily with Sweden, Norway and Denmark, is actually quite remarkably upgraded already. Solar, wind, nuclear and hydropower share the infrastructure with the existing fossil fuel plants in the most advanced grid in the world. The biggest problem comes when the wind blows strongly over northern Europe and when it is dark, snowy and no wind is blowing. While Norway and Sweden still have a large amount of reliable base power, Germany has very quickly moved to less reliable AE and is highly dependent on Scandinavia for power normalizing. At least 10 years ago, there was great concern about the ability of the grid to work properly, but when Germany decide to start shuttering their nuke and coal plants at a rapid rate the problems began to escalate faster than they could deal with effectively.
Remember all the angst last year when they were going to experience a daytime eclipse? Fortunately, after a couple months of advance planning, they were able to weather the large decline in PV contribution effectively. Even so, the country had asked citizens to reduce their power consumption during the event to help with the problem of not having enough base load power available even with the power sharing agreements in effect. They are living close to the edge right now. I think they quietly are having several new coal/natural gas plants built to help with the situation in a couple of years from now. They really need to create a large power storage system and since they are rather hellbent to use more AE then ever, I think they are ready for an very expensive electricity to hydrogen/methane to electricity system.
Germany and Hawaii... Great experiments in progress...
No where, ever, did I say that adding more CO2 won't raise the temperature. I said that at these levels there is very little additional warming that will result by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere.
Where do you come up with this 'statement' of mine?
Please research the logarithmic response of temperature to atmospheric CO2 levels for more understanding of the subject.
I already said many times in the past that there should not be anyone that disagrees with ACC. The only disagreement is, and should be, the EXTENT and SEVERITY, of the changes.
Good grief, how many times do I need to tell you that? I know red forgets everything I tell him, but I didn't think you had this problem, too. Why do you have such selective memories? Is it caused by an elevated level of CO2?
There is growing evidence that the Saudi gamble was to not only limit the volume of oil from US fracking, but also to force capitulation in Russian output and anticipated increases in Iraq and Iran output.
Judging from the evidence so far, the bet is not entirely working for them. Russia is still shipping all it can in an effort to meet cash flow needs, Iran now may be allowed to export significantly more and in the US there has been a major improvement in extracting fracked liquids for lower and lower prices. There is still a chance that Russia will cut back sharply on new oil field investments and China demand will stay lower for some time, but the Saudi's are burning through their cash reserves to the tune of 60+ billion dollars a year when oil prices are under $50 a barrel. The Saudi's still have over 650 billion remaining, but the burn rate is still certainly substantial. Longer term, the world may retreat into another global recession in 2017/2018 so if they can hold out that long they may have achieved a reasonable goal of forcing higher priced suppliers to leave the market.
Except for a few short cooling intervals, the glaciers have been melting ever since we exited the last Ice Age ten thousand years ago. The oceans have been warming up ever since we exited the last Ice Age, too. Are you prescient enough to say that the current glaciation and oceanic temperatures are now 'different' than normal cyclical cycles? That would put you among a small group of scientists who say they are' that good' and outside a large group of scientists who say it is impossible to tell.
The west has wildfires and droughts on a regular and cyclical basis. We have been in a positive PDO situation for the last 30 years (which leads to warmer and drier weather for the west) and now this is exacerbated by a growing ENSO and a stubborn high pressure ridge. The Palmer Drought Severity Index for California is ~ -6.0...the same as in 1990, but this is less than the Index in 1978 and 1924. The trend in California precipitation has been virtually flat since 1900 per NOAA.
The reason the west has had more fires than normal, according to the USFS, is a combination of warming temps over the last century (0.5 degrees), more accidental and arson initiated fires by population growth and policies of suppressing forest fires by the Forest Service leading to more undergrowth. So how much, if any, is attributable to CC? The west has been a desert for a few millennia...
BTW, I am not in favor of dig, dig, dig or drill, drill, drill policies. I am much more in favor of AE's, curbing the pollutants and conservation. I am more in favor of smart thinking and rational policies regarding all forms of energy production.
For smn, sawa, red and others,
I'm going to try and explain to you in a few paragraphs the average skeptic's argument why the global atmospheric temperature should not, and in fact, is not, increasing to the extent predicted by the rise of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere using generally accepted numbers that are spread all over the literature. If you want to verify the numbers please do as many Google searches as you want. This may take a few successive posts and I hope the sensors of Yahoo allow it...
There are only two things to really consider in this argument...the predictions and the actuals. The actual temperatures are the baseline and all predictions need to be judged on their ability to predict reality well or not so well. Bear in mind that a well predicting model may have results that match reality, but merely did so by coincidence in spite of the internal factors being wrong. A poor predicting model may have almost all the internal factors correct, but is just missing the one or two that would make the model accurate.
First a visual model.
Imagine you are looking at the Earth from the 'top' of the atmosphere. The ‘top’ I will define as about 20 miles since this distance contains 99+% of the atmosphere and 99+% of the CO2 molecules and where 99+% of the radiation capture and emission activity directly affecting this discussion occurs. You are looking through a column of atmosphere perpendicular to the surface. Imagine all of the molecules of gas (nitrogen, oxygen, water...everything but CO2) are represented by clear marbles. All CO2 molecules I am signifying by red marbles. In the initial condition there is no CO2 and when you look down all you see is a column of clear marbles.