There must be more to it than that. Hydrogen proponents have claimed that it only costs 1 million dollars to provide a hydrogen fueling station. If this is the case, then a fueling station could have been built in Whistler for a fraction of the cost of the H2 bus program. An electrolysis unit that produced 100 KG per day should have been sufficient. You can't tell me water and electricity weren't available locally.
Maybe there was a high maintenance cost and no maintenance facility was provided in Whistler? Maybe it was too expensive to operate? Maybe Whistler didn't have the money to buy the buses?
"I don't use political sites for my science and news."
Really?? There is the root of your problem, red. You can't recognize anything for what it is...only for what you wish it to be. Yes, you are that far over the edge, accelerating into oblivion, denying the obvious and you still say "I don't use political sites for my science and news."?
And you want us to think you are a credible source of information?
The statistic she quoted is correct, but even NASA said that the large loss the winter earlier was due to an Arctic cyclone that pushed an inordinate amount of ice out of the area. It is not much of a surprise that so much of the open water then re-froze last winter.
It is interesting that the amount of ice-breaking in the Artic has started to climb noticeably the last 20 years. There are now upwards of 40+ icebreakers working the Artic ice from Russia to the Bering to Newfoundland and Greenland. There were only about 5 ships 20 years ago. There are another dozen planned in the next ten years. All are constantly carving the ice up to keep sea lanes open and to create new lanes for trans-Arctic shipping and later for 'defense' purposes.
How does this affect the ice extent? No-one knows, but it certainly does...especially when the ice is trimmed at the edges as so much is to keep Nome open and the sea routes from Newfoundland to the Greenland coast. How much has the scientific research ships cut up the mass? The tourist excursions? The petroleum exploration? The hunting and fishing expeditions?
It is interesting to note that the Antarctic sea ice continues to grow, but then there is far less icebreaking going on down under. No-one seems to know why miniscule air and water temperature increases in the Arctic and Arctic waters can effect such a 'melt-off' of the sea ice.
Don't be so quick to presume it is CO2 as the air temperature:CO2 emissions don't correlate well and don't make any sense with melting sea ice as can be measured.
Are you calling me a liar, red? As usual you have absolutely no basis for calling my facts wrong...but that won't stop you from looking like an idiot again will it?
He is 56 and she is 55. Neither can work due to do disabilities. There is no question that WA dropped the plan as it was not in compliance with the ACA rules and was designed for low income families. The ACA was a good excuse not to continue the legacy plan. Theoretically, he should have been able to get another plan for not a whole lot more because subsidies would have paid a larger percentage, but so far that is not the case.
My brother was enrolled in a special low-income health plan with the state of WA. Obviously when the ACA was enacted the state dropped his plan immediately. He was paying about $ 154 a month for care for he and his wife. He, too, struggled for many weeks to get enrolled. Now the best he can get is $758 a month with subsidies. He is having an insurance specialist try to do better than that, but no luck so far.
'Affordable' for him? I think not. The rest of the family will be picking up most of this new cost for he and his wife (in addition to the new taxes for the ACA subsidies) so he can continue to get health care. 'Affordable' for us? I think not.
The ACA is a colossal screw-up. I wonder how much the government will be providing the insurance companies as a bail-out for excess costs not covered when too few healthy sign up and too many older sign up? Any idea of the drag on the economy this new Act will cost?
CTL selling is way overdone. There is no cash flow problem now and no apparent cash flow problem evident for the next year. I picked up another 500 shares at $ 30.5 this morning. This is really a good deal at this price level...
There was some energy analysis done on creating and shipping LH2 years ago. I think the result was that AFTER the creation of hydrogen, the entire net energy content of the hydrogen (after liquification, filling of the transport thermos and losses of hydrogen along the way) was lost if it had to be shipped more than 400 miles by a diesel truck. Meaning if you want to get the highest net return from hydrogen it needs to be manufactured right where you fill up and used within the fewest days possible before it evaporates from your fuel tank.
Any transport by thermos truck is almost a net energy loss from the get go. You have to pre-chill the thermos with liquid nitrogen before you add the liquid hydrogen and still you lose about 20% of the liquid hydrogen to flash evaporation that has to be recaptured and re-liquified all over again. (Not to mention the costs of creating and losing the liquid nitrogen. Transport by pipeline of gaseous hydrogen is also a large energy loser just after a few hundred miles. The cost to keep it pressurized and moving down pipe is huge compared to the energy content of the gas because its energy density is so low.
Those that say that hydrogen can be produced at a fueling station and sold for $5 a KG (a gallon of gasoline equivalent) to an automobile user is certainly not saying that $5 a kg covers all the costs. It most certainly does not. The true cost will be about $10-12 a kilogram after all fixed and variable costs are taken into account. Then there are the taxes that will be imposed by our government on top of that.
I honestly can't believe that Whistler would have to truck in liquid hydrogen from Quebec...so maybe they are importing pressurized hydrogen. In either case, that makes no sense at all. Hydrogen can be made anywhere and there should be a source located literally in Whistler for this to be even remotely economically manageable by Whistlers bus system.
Germany found themselves in a similar situation..as did England. Wind and solar sound like such a great alternate power solution, but as is been clear to many, they are fraught with serious limitations as large scale utility generators. England just ran out of options with wind. Germany actually shares a large inter country grid of nuclear, coal, wind and hydro so that it can get enough reliable power to function. Japan has suffered a major blow in power generation with the loss of Fukushima and can't begin to make it up with imported LNG. It was just a matter of time before they reached the realization that coal provides a reasonably safe, energy dense and plentiful fuel.
Good for them.
That's a good question. Schwab notes all my other dividends as 'qualified' or 'non-qualified', but for SDRL it just says 'cash' dividend...
I have mentioned many, many times before that I, too, think hydrogen has a decent chance for being the fuel of the future. But decades from now...and I still think that is the case. In the meantime there is very stiff resistance to overcoming the electric and gasoline infrastructure already in place.
It's real easy. Just go to Google and search for Navigant FCV and electric vehicle forecasts. You should find more than what you can read in an hour there. Why is this so hard for you?
Navigant, a large international business consulting firm, has issued annual forecast numbers for light duty vehicle sales for the future.
HEV's will grow from 1.7 million in 2013, to 2.2 million in 2015 and to 3.6 million in 2020
PHEV's will grow from 125 thousand in 2013, to 500 thousand in 2015 and to 1.4 million in 2020
BEV's will grow from 100,000 in 2013, to 500 thousand in 2015 and to 1.3 million in 2020
FCV's will grow from 50 in 2013, to 1000 in 2015 and to 50,000 in 2020
Their FCV forecast actually extends to 2030 where 2 million will be sold. They did not extend the EV forecast numbers so no comparisons beyond 2020 can be made. The non-FCV electrics will command 7% of auto sales in 2020. FCV's will command 0.06% of auto sales in 2020.
FCV's still have a very long way to go to catch up with non-FCV's.
Here's something to think about. A study at a local business showed that 99.8% of their employees (427 of 428) drive a daily round trip of less than 60 miles to work and back. This is well within the range of every mainline EV offered today...especially if one considers that they could charge the cars for 8 hours while they were at work. The company was trying to determine whether they should provide up to 100 charging stations for their employees that chose to drive EV's. If the drive before charging was only 30 miles max, there would be very little deep discharge issues for the battery pack and virtually no cold or hot weather range issues.
I believe the number of employees who would 'strongly consider' buying an electric car for their work commute was over 50% and if their was no direct cost to pay for them to get charged at work the number jumped to over 80%. The company was considering providing some of this power by PV panels...how much I don't know. (I think it was said that it would take up to 10 KW to charge each car).
But it goes to show you that not everyone feels that you need to get 400 miles out of an EV before you would consider it viable. A majority thinks that 60 miles is enough for the bulk of their driving. I think many people feel that way which is why EV sales are growing very strongly.
The 2015 Leaf will raise its useful mileage to 125 miles per charge from 75 miles per charge. Nissan says that lithium battery technology is advancing rapidly due to energy density improvements. They say they used to plan on 4 year battery technology cycles, but now are looking at 2 year cycles now.
The electrical charging infrastructure is already built out for 80% of us. The hydrogen infrastructure is built out for what...about 0.0000001% of us?
When will FCV sales surpass EV sales?
It's a good question that I'm not sure anyone can answer, but here are my two cents...
It's not a story stock with high expectations anymore. Ballard has been trying to find a profitable way to introduce, and sell, fuel cell products for 20 years. Now there are many other FC players that have entered the marketplace and taken the high flyer status of Ballard away.
Ballard has a long history of introducing new products only to see a lot of them die from low sales. I don't think the barn-burner product has been discovered that will create the blockbuster demand, so we can only expect an incremental growth plan for now.
Ballard has not seemed to be able to sell a product at a high margin...at least one high enough to show a big swing to profitability.
Ballards earnings growth is simply not growing 'fast enough' to generate excitement fo buyers. It's all about trading for most of the market players right now. You can almost watch, like clockwork, the couple day rise on 'news' or earnings only to have it settle back immediately. The traders know that there is almost no staying power for the stock despite an announcement of any kind.
Many traders/investors see a trend for most of the earnings to come from maintenance contracts rathers than material sales. This is great in the short term, but is not a good business for the long term. Materials sales and repeat sales will be key.
I guess Ballard is not yet technically ready to mass market fuel cells to a world that is not yet ready to mass purchase them. That is my bottom line opinion I keep coming up with. The stock will grow substantially when the profits grow substantially. This seems still many years away based on the current economic situation.