On the other hand, one can imagine a small rural community where farming is a big percentage of the local income. If each farmer were to commit a large share of their land to PV they would reap a reasonably constant monthly income that is not subject to the whims of agricultural price forces, weather, pests or costs associated with tilling, seeding, watering, pests, harvesting, etc. The farmer's time could be freed up substantially and the collective community might have more money to spend due to the overall increase in wealth. Since many PV installations are owned by another company and the farmer gets a share of the sold power, there might not be any debt on a PV system that has to be paid off.
So you have less work, more reliable income, potentially less debt, potentially less pollution and more personal time to pursue other avenues of work or pleasure... In this case the rural community does not suffer the problem of not needing to live in a metro area to prosper. It has been theorized that a rural community/regional utility need not worry so much about excess peak power if the PV system incorporated a tall water tower to act as pumped storage.
I am sure this system has it's own set of unintended consequences, but the income inequality issue might be lessened.
The TA seems to suggest it is fairly valued in here with strong overhead resistance at ~ $ 30. I would be surprised if it does much of anything for a couple months, but who really knows...
An article today mentions that there are over 180 million battery powered bicycles in China today and 24 million will be sold this year. Over 90% are lead batteries and under 10% are lithium batteries. I presume very few are hydrogen fuel cell powered. They note that the growth of battery-powered bicycles will slow as the cities are getting 'too big' (ie. the suburbs are too far away from the jobs) and the amount of cars are increasing so much that bicycling is getting more dangerous.
Lead prices have peaked as the consumption growth has slowed and lead batteries are being recycled at high rates now. The price for lithium is still rising (obviously) and will continue to remain high for years. Oil prices will remain low for years to come with still a lot of supply in the ground. Platinum will remain high as fuel cell and catalytic converter demand rises and supplies decline. Hydrogen will remain fairly low if produced from natural gas and moderately high if produced from wind or solar.
Just fodder to think about when trying to get a handle on what technologies and costs will be as we move 5, 10, 20 years in the future...
In retrospect, the time to short would have been at the double/triple top of close to $16. Now it has fallen to ~$ 14.50, the RSI and MACD show a very over sold condition, and sentiment is very bearish. A contrarian approach might suggest that the resistance of ~ $ 14.40 would be meaningful after such a recent drubbing.
How much further of a drop do you think a short could take advantage of at this time?
There are a lot of variables to consider when trying to get a good number.
Unsubsidized 4-nines hydrogen costs about $7 per kilogram in bulk. Unsubsidized delivery at a refueling station would run about $10 minimum. At 60 mpkg it would take about $16.80.
Gasoline at the pump is mostly unsubsidized, but assuming $3 per gallon and a non-hybrid 25 mpg it would cost about $12. Consider that a hybrid would do considerably better. Given 35 mpg for a hybrid, the hybrid would cost about $ 8.60.
Hydrogen is currently being sold at hydrogen fueling stations for a (subsidized) ~$ 4.50 to 6 a kilogram. Some can argue the the subsidized cost of gasoline is about $1 dollar higher per gallon.
A pure EV would consume about 30 KW and cost about $2-5.
A bicycle would cost about 4 hamburgers or about $6-14.
An electric bicycle would consume about 3 KW and cost about $ 0.40.
So...the question is where does it stop falling so that it will be an interesting, and low risk, time to buy again? The technicals suggest ~14.90 (currently) and ~14.40 as moderate support levels. Does an interest rate rise of 0.25% really mean anything for CIM profitability in the long run? Is a 12.9% dividend at risk now or is it a rate high enough to accept some risk?
I am interested at today's price, but haven't yet added to my holdings and don't know if I will at this point. At $14.40 I would definitely add, all things being equal....
Given that all of the news for this quarter has been disseminated and digested and that the wild and crazy traders have come and gone, the stock price is just about where it was before the end of the quarter...
I would guess that this implies that last quarter was generally modest, but unimpressive and that looking forward is generally modest and unimpressive.
We have seen this same mentality for many, many quarters (years?) now. I wonder what it will take to fundamentally change the outlook for this stock?
There are some analysts estimates today that predict $0.56 per share this quarter. This would be only one penny less than last quarter. Maybe this is seen as a good thing as earlier estimates were lower? Dividend remains constant at $0.70 this quarter (May 15).
In any case, TGP stays the course, for now. Which is a good thing.
I was much longer in the past, but have whittled it down on average over the years due to poor performance. I believe hydrogen has a chance to be a mainstream fuel, but progress has been very slow. Very slow. So you are wrong about me seeing 'no possible advantage in its tech'. I thought crude oil would be much higher than now, but the boom in crude production has put a strong damper on FC's as a viable motive source for the time being.
For me the oil pollution angle is only a small worry about what is good or bad for this stocks future. The biggest problem is the cost of harvesting hydrogen and its necessary infrastructure compared to the relatively low cost for oil/gasoline. When the economics are better, the stock price will be better.
Now, after holding this stock (always long) for ten years, there is a new threat emerging for the FC technology...and that is the battery. Call battery an intermediate bridge if you will, but battery power has swamped FC power when accounting for vehicles sold to date.
There have been thousands of positive articles about FC's but the FC technology has barely bounced of the asphalt. It's going to take a much better cost/benefit ratio for hydrogen FC's to begin to become mainstream.
I hold the stock, despite being in a losing position, because I am still very interested in the technology. You, and other pumpers, always diss the traders and shorts, even when (because?) they have made more money than you. I have held for a lot longer than many on this board and you are completely wrong about my philosophy. I am a realist, not a pumper, and if this technology is being held back or threatened by another technology, a holder of this stock better make darn sure of the risks. And right now that includes battery technology...
I am an owner of 8000 shares purchased at ~$5.25.
Just in case you are wrong...again...about me being a short.
What is your point? Can you, in any way, say that this seven cent (relative) fluctuation is specifically related to the split? Th stock has shown several equivalent fluctuations, both up and down, the last 12 months that were wholly UN-related to the split. The is nothing statistically interesting at all with this variance. The stock was ~$13.75 one year ago...
There is an article out today about a flow battery test in Washington state for grid storage. It notes almost no lifetime or degradation issues like a typical battery would have. It doesn't mention the chemistry although Vanadium chemistries have been worked on for a long time.
It is a one megawatt unit that can charge/discharge in about 4 hours and supply the needs of ~500 homes. This technology has high hopes of meeting the need to buffer the wild swings of wind power in the future grid-based power supply.
For CA (Not including unknown sources of imported electrons)...
Coal = 0.1%
Nat Gas = 57%
Nuclear = 8.0%
Hydropower = 15.4%
Other Renewables = 19%
Biomass = 2.8%
Geothermal = 5.6%
Solar = 4.7%
Wind = 6.1%
Petroleum = 0.0%
You need to get a grip on some of your opinions...
From the EIA for 2014. US energy production by source for 2014...
• Coal = 39%
• Natural gas = 27%
• Nuclear = 19%
• Hydropower = 6%
• Other renewables = 7%
• Biomass = 1.7%
• Geothermal = 0.4%
• Solar = 0.4%
• Wind = 4.4%
• Petroleum = 1%
• Other gases