I would agree that a level of 1.1 to 1.2 'should' be good support. Despite the fact that good profits seem hard to come by for this company, they are ever so slowly making forward progress. Some small deals might become bigger ones down the road. But I don't see them failing as a company. I would be very surprised if they ever fell below $1 again.
The upside is filled with multiple resistance levels, though I think few are severe. The company needs to show solid quarter over quarter over quarter progress in sales (with good margins) before we will see a quality rise in stock price.
I believe the company trades more on fundamentals than technicals at this point. At least that the feeling one would get from the comments of the stockholders on this board...
Tell me how you believe that the climate pre-1850 was more ideal for the human race than the climate of post-1850? Not suppositions, but real facts.
Tell me why you accept that the post-1950 temperature data has been adjusted upwards by 0.6 degrees and the pre-1950 temperature data has been adjusted downward by -0.3 degrees and why NASA/GISS won't reveal the details of how and why they did this adjustment?
Tell me why you still believe the climate model outputs and the people that espouse them when the actual temperatures are far below the model predictions and the over-predictions of the models are growing steadily greater with each passing year?
Tell me statistically (or psychologically) why 99.9% of all the predict changes to a warming world are damaging and will provide a negative benefit to the human population? Tell me how you can believe these prognostications when we have virtually no real world experience with warmer temperatures in recent history?
Tell me why the vast majority of the predictions made about temperature increases, melting ice, sinking islands, decreased crop yields, more droughts, more floods, more diseases, more tornados, more hurricanes, shorter life spans etc. have been complete failures?
You are a classic example of how human beings gravitate to bad news and away from good news because scary things are more interesting. You disregard hundreds of predictions that have failed miserably. You believed in failed climate models. You believe that climate change will automatically be bad. You believe that climate researchers don't care where there funding comes from and that they can be completely unbiased about their research. You believe that the governments have your best interests at heart. You fail to accept human ingenuity and adaptability. You disregard the attempts by climate researchers to cover-up data that doesn't conform to their dictate.
You are the poster child of manipulation.
Yes, I thought so, too. I didn't see anything that would lead me to believe that this was a 'one-time' misery and would not happen again. Do you have any further insight?
It's called a reality check. They are not 'negative' but cautionary. They present the bigger picture, not just the myopic picture. Shall I call you out for always being positive about fuel cells? You are here to help us right?
Capitalism will define the outcome just as you said. Capitalism is based on profits, not losses. Existing, or near existing, technology is a much safer bet with a much better handle on potential sales and profits. Governments and businesses know this. I'm sure that not a lot of individuals understand this. Future technology will be examined, especially if government subsidies are there to pay for R&D and cover a portion of potential losses.
They will roll out some FC products and evaluate them. But in the meantime, they will roll out a lot more clean diesel, hybrid and battery products to meet the demand until, and if, the FC products (or any other future technology) are deemed profitable.
Yes capitalism, government intervention and public opinion will eventually sort out the future of mobility solutions. FC's will likely play a part in the solutions, but it going to take some time.
BTW, in the last 20 years battery technology has grown in huge measures. No-one is contemplating using battery technology from 20 years ago. Why would you think that?
Sorry, but of course they have credibility. Your just not willing to grasp the whole picture by focusing solely on the FC solution and avoiding the other ongoing solutions.
I would agree with your statement about the Feds continuing to raise interest rates in a 'normal' economic environment. I don't see this a normal economic environment however. This recovery is about at its peak now. It may stay here for awhile, but the next major directional change is down..towards a slowdown. And with the lack of inflation from too many dollars floating about, I don't believe there will be any continuing interest rate increases for another 6 years. Any interest rate increase is going to hurt the already weak consumer loan demand, will strengthen the dollar and generally pressure the economy. Even if oil prices magically rise significantly, this too, will hurt rather than help and cause even more resistance to raising rates.
I am betting that even two 1/4 point increases are almost out of the question for the fore seeable future...
If we could find a way to convert sunlight to some form of liquid fuel (like ethanol above) at high volume and low cost would be such a game changer. Having a high energy density liquid fuel available that could use much of the existing infrastructure, burn fairly cleanly and avoid the issues with highly compressed gases to move vehicles might solve a lot of the alternative fuel questions we are facing today.
Thanks for the post.
At 10 degrees you still have a 150 mile range! This meets the needs of more than 99% of users.
Actual users say that in increasing cold the range drop-off is incrementally less...not more. And that makes sense thermo-chemically. One user drives 100 miles a day in Norway at -25F as long as he pre-warms his battery before driving...much like most people keep their ICE's warm with plug-in heaters before driving at those temperatures. A fuel cell will need to be pre-warmed to above freezing before it can operate, too.
Batteries are not perfect, ICE's are not perfect, fuel cells are not perfect.
Actually Jake, there is data out there showing that the optimum outdoor temperature for EV's is ~60-65F. The range drops off by about 5% at 50F. So an 85KW Tesla would drop from ~240 miles at 60F to ~225 miles at 50F. Its about 192 at 40F, 180 at 30F, 167 at 20F and 151 at 10F.
The reason it is not lower than you might guess is that the current draw warms up the battery chemistry while in an operating mode so the battery is not as cold as the ambient temperature.
So, no...it's not as bad as you think.
This level is becoming very interesting technically. It held awhile a couple months ago, but broke down with a couple days of lackluster selling. As resistance it was challenged a couple weeks ago, unsuccessfully, until it finally broke above at the beginning of this week. The breakout was not decisive, though, as each push upward was met by significant selling. All day yesterday the stock the level tested it as a 'floor' but it broke down this morning quite convincingly.
This is now becoming significant as a technical level to watch closely as lots of buying and selling is at prices within the $ 1.50-1.70 range.
A breakdown below $ 1.50 would be very disappointing. A breakout above $1.70 would be very encouraging.
Not necessarily. On 'particularly cold' days, the Tesla is often parked inside a warmer garage and the batteries start out warmer than the outside temps, there is a greater chance that the lights are turned on, there is a greater chance that the heater fan is on and the rolling resistance of the tires is increased.
Once the car is outside and the accessories are included that car's computer adjusts for the cooler batteries and the higher current draw and the mileage adjustments are accurately recalculated.
Many people don't grasp the full complexities of determining range in EV's. If they don't , they get frustrated unwarrantedly.
Have we finished warming from the Little Ice Age yet? We have lots of evidence that the Earth was warmer 1000 and 3000 years ago than today. What are the odds of that happening?
Can you tell me what percentage of the warming from 1880 is natural and what is man-made?
You are basing all your rants on a temperature record that is only 135 years old and has been manipulated to make the past colder and the recent warmer? We are still colder by 2-3 degrees F than when we first popped out of the last Ice Age.
Where do you see all the demons of climate hell that are dooming us?
I and several others noted that SDRL cut its dividend after multiple promises not to and the same could happen to NMM despite many assurances that the dividend would be maintained. Many on this board said that would not happen with NMM. Ah well... The greatest plans of mice and men...
You can not place this much trust in what somebody says especially when the numbers just don't support the rhetoric.