A good use for the fuel cell. Using otherwise wasted byproduct hydrogen for power generation at a chlorine plant. Although the one megawatt is a small fraction of the power that this chemical plant likely uses, it still is a great recovery solution of that otherwise 'lost' power.
Who has a closed mind?
There are rapid changes of all kinds happening all the time. I am shocked that some individuals can't take off their custom fit blinders for a real world view
Over the past few decades we have dramatically reduced all kinds of pollution from particulates to ozone to NOx to HC's to sulfur to heavy metals to noise to VOC's to ionizing radiation to asbestos...you name it. Most of those have been reduced well OVER 90% in 30 years.
Energy efficiencies have dramatically improved in furnaces, air conditioners, lighting, insulation, building materials, electric motors, batteries, codes, solar panels, refrigerators, jet engines, boat hulls, propeller designs, wind turbines, TV/Monitor screens, manufacturing processes, tire designs, recycling materials, corrosion resistant materials, film technologies of all kinds, etc. The list of better products and technologies are endless.
Today work goes on in battery technology, nano materials, alternate energies, longer lifetime products, better steels, reduced material consumption, better agriculture techniques, cleaner fuels, less energy intensive everything... And all you and smnorgy do is complain that nothing is happening? Closed minds? Hell-in-a-handbasket futures?
Time to wake up to a world that is rapidly running away from you... Maybe you can still join it?
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?
I am amused to see that the big CO2 polluting trip to Alaska by the President and his large tag-along staff brought no satisfaction to the environmentalists as China, India and Russia refused to sign the document...even if it was a non-binding agreement.
Yet the President agreed to deploy more ice-breakers in the Arctic to counter the increased ice breakers and military ships of other nations. Now the ice floe will be more mobile and more easily flushed from the Arctic Ocean and the huge increase in black particulate from diesel exhaust will accelerate the ice melting faster than ever before...
Yes hypocrisy and idiocy are still alive and well in la-la land.
Zack's ratings are heavily based on technicals. 6 weeks is not a very long time to see performance especially if the fundamentals have changed in the meantime. We certainly have seen a huge amount of negative news about oil inventories and Iran sanctions and large waves of selling as a result. So the technical still look good, maybe better now, but the sentiment is over-weighted to the sell side.
I think that Zack's is more right than wrong, especially on their #1 rankings. A lot will depend on what we hear from the company and what the future inventories are, the strength of the dollar, the Chinese economy, the Saudi pumping plans, etc.
LNCO has been in a very disappointing economic market for about a year and a lot depends on how efficient they can pump, how well they can hedge and how smart they can manage their debt. It's hard for me to believe that a bottom in stock performance isn't near.
And this is your fundamental problem. You don't recognize reputable science and reputable scientists. James Hansen used to be somewhat normal until his mid-20's when he started to go off the deep end. Unfortunately he has fallen wayyyy off the pesdestal. None of his crazy predictions have come true and this latest, super crazy, prediction is off the charts nuts. There is NO mechanism that would allow a sea level rise of 'at least 10 feet in the next 50 years'. None. Nada. No-one but crazy Jim Hansen is predicting anything so far off from reality.
But you, red, never fail to latch on to crazy info that has no basis in reality and then tout it as reputable and from a reputable scientist.
I don't view CO2 as a pollutant at all. The politicized EPA should never have made such a stupid ruling. It is a necessary ingredient for life on Earth. CO2 has recently bounced off a geological, historical low of about 280 ppm and has climbed to ~400 ppm...the majority likely from fossil fuel emissions. At ~150ppm plants stop growing and these levels were approached in every ice age (~180ppm). The rise of 120 ppm has dramatically improved crop yields and I am cheering that. Atmospheric physics calculations say the 120 ppm should have raised the global temperatures by ~0.3-0.4 degrees, but another 120 ppm will raise the levels by less and another 120 ppm even less. Even if the CO2 rises to 800 ppm the world's temperatures should rise by no more than 1 degree from today putting the temperature still less than what is was at the beginning of the current Holocene era (when we exited the last Ice Age) when humans and plant life thrived.
If you want to see how much the temperatures have been artificially inflated by human 'adjustments' you ought to see the paper at Watt's Up With That today. The adjustments of the GISS and HadCRUT temperature databases have increased the historical temperatures by 1.2 degrees...so far... It's interesting that the inflated numbers are the ones being touted by the media and spoon fed to the willing instead of the other satellite and balloon databases that say the temperature rise has only been in the 0.4 degrees as calculated and predicted. So when you here that the world temp has risen 1.5 degrees from 1950, that is a lie. It has only risen about 0.4 degrees.
Additional methane has a lot less beneficial purpose for man, but the increases (likely most by man) are way low on the 'greenhouse effect' to the point of almost immeasurable. They are not an issue.
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...)
The 2016 model will offer up to a 107 mile range. The 2018 model is rumored to have 250-300 mile range to compete with the new Tesla model. There is also some talk about a new chemistry that minimizes cold weather battery performance.
More than 200,000 Leafs sold to date.
It always amazes me those who give a thumbs down to such good real-world information as the data above. For all those who want BLDP to succeed and be profitable (and to make them a lot of money) you NEED to have all the real world info you can get. You need to read it thoroughly. You need to crunch some numbers. And you need to weigh the data with the expectations.
Without doing so you will never understand why BLDP is priced where it is - nor can you make any intelligent assumptions of where the price/product/company is going or how long it will take to get there.
"but there is a certain group who deny GW/CC, they are the terrorist."
That pretty much sums up your credibility, doesn't it?
Red, Please overlay the S&P 500, the Hang Seng and BLDP charts. You will find there is zero correlation between Ballard and either other market. Zero. Up, down or flat. Zero.
It's a nice excuse for you apparently, but it is meaningless for anyone else.
We should all know that 2014 was not a good year financially for Ballard. After a mildly advancing year for the company in 2013, some have offered that 2014 was a year of 'transition' and 2015 would be very big.
Now we see, however, the first half of 2015 has been quite poor in almost all areas (showing substantially poorer results than the first 6 months of 2014. Some of us are quite unsure of whether there is a systemic problem concerning the company's operations or about the technology...or something...
I will be among the first to argue that the technology is still in an 'experimental' phase and that decisions made to market various product lines, capitalize on proprietary knowledge or choose appropriate business partners have been well below anybody's acceptable expectations. So what does anyone see that will really turn this around the last half of 2015? Or are we going resign ourselves into accepting that 2015 will be another year of 'transition'?
Ballard has frustrated many an investor in the last 15 years and the stock performance reflects that. Hopes and dreams and promises are not going to fuel much of anything in this company anymore. Solid, absolutely believable, results are needed. What are the catalysts we will see this year?
Your action almost looks like capitulation...sold almost exactly at the low point. Now it has climbed for a couple days. Can we use you as a barometer of when the bottom is in?
Last week I was in CA for a visit. I did not see many FC vehicles, but not as many electric vehicles as I might have thought either. Maybe five Teslas and five Leafs, but there is a large number of gasoline hybrids on the roads. There was one FC vehicle in the parking lot of the California Fuel Cell Partnership building, though. It looked more like a test vehicle than someone's commuter. Gasoline was ~ $ 3.59 a gallon and diesel was a little less.
I was also a little disappointed in the penetration of PV solar in the area as I flew over San Francisco, Davis and Sacramento. There were a few big boxes with panels along with a few parking lot covers. But in the $600,000 to $1,000,000 neighborhoods that I was in maybe only 1 in 25-30 homes had any roof panels despite the rather huge financial incentives to do so. The roof panels that I saw were heavily coated with dust and dirt (mostly on the homes...much cleaner on commercial buildings). I personally cleaned the panels of the family I was staying with and one of their neighbors and the power generated rose about 25% and 40% respectively. There is a real conflict between having clean (and high efficiency power production) panels and water consumption and many homeowners are skipping the cleaning to save 3 gallons of water every month. I think this is ridiculous as both these homeowners had working pools that were replenished with water to the tune of about 20 gallons a day...
They said there is a cleaning service that you can hire that charges about $ 50-75 to clean the panels, but that amounts to about one months output depending on the size of the system. If you cleaned once a month you would have little to no financial advantage to having panels at all! It took me less than 10 minutes to clean the panels so $ 50 seems excessive, but many of the homeowners may not feel comfortable getting on the roof to do the cleaning.
These are well established facts.
Why do the facts bother you? Why do fudged numbers not bother you? Why do you believe something that is not true? Why do you believe the climate models which are not predicting the global temperature at all (all running hot)? Why do you give a pass to those that are misleading you?
I would think you would want to rise above all the misinformation and outright dishonesty that has plagued pro-AGW science research over the last 5 years (well, in the case of Jim Hansen, more than 20 years).
If no-one can yet say that we have now finished warming from the LIA, do you think the science is 'settled' as Al "The core of the Earth is millions of degrees" Gore has so foolishly opined?
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.