While small, run-of-river hydro is considered a renewable in most states' RPS, **big** hydro is not. This is a **very** big deal here in the Northeast. And given the voice for removal of the dams on the Columbia River in WA to improve salmon migration, probably in the Northwest, as well.
CA may lead in terms of total kwh, but if you look at pct of renewable to total power consumed, you may be surprised to learn that CA is not in the leader... it isn't even in the first tier (hence the dig at the enviro-pansies). CA is an example of "more hat than cattle".... while the "greenies" in CA have been talking a good game, for years, other states have been implementing.
As I said.. I'll take the bet. RPS' are beginning to collide with reality. That is partly why the "big hydro" debate is heating up out my way. CA is lagging other states in terms of %.
I'll take the bet. Codification doesn't doesn't guarantee that wishful thinking is economically, or even practically, feasible.
First, I'm not impressed with CA's RPS. Here in windless, sunless, CT, the RPS calls for 18% renewable this year and 27% by 2020. CA is peopled by a bunch of enviro-pansies if the best they can do in a sunny, windy state like theirs is 30%,
I'll give CT DEEP credit for waking to the increasing reality that the RECs needed for the State, as provider of electricity to individuals and businesses that do not choose a supplier, to avoid financial penalties for failing to achieve the RPS will not be available. Simply put, the regional renewable projects needed for CT to meet its RPS are not being **designed**, let alone built. And that ignores the fact that CT is competing with other states in the region to acquire whatever additional RECs might be generated.
So how did CT DEEP deal with this minor glitch? By proposing that the legislature wave its magic pen and transform a portion of big hydro into a renewable. Voila!!!
My bet is that CA, too, will have to fudge. That in spite of oodles of potentially productive wind sites and desert areas just begging to be covered with solar cell farms or mirror arrays, the realities of environmental and aesthetic impact will strangle what is a noble objective.
This assertion sounds so ignorant that I had to go over to Fox and search for the article.
The only thing that came up was a December 10, 2013 article / opinion piece by Elizabeth MacDonald. The fundamental question appears to be whether or not the IRS will classify volunteers as "employees" for the purposes of determining the employer mandate. Nowhere did that article suggest that firemen don't need insurance. Methinks you're starting a "fight" to no end, Lake.
And just to muddle things a bit... if NH Fish and Game signs me up as a volunteer for a SAR efforts, I'm covered by workers comp. That is... if I'm injured while assisting with a search, the costs of my medical care and rehab are paid. From the few googles on the subject that I've done, it appears that volunteer fire fighters are similarly covered by workers comp. Why would we expect volunteers to be provided with any more than that?
And just to extent the conversation... would the IRS designation of "employee" extend to volunteers of any sort in any area of interest?
I volunteer lots of time for an outdoor group. Does that mean they have to provide me with health insurance?
And what about the volunteers at the local art museum (and numerous other civic organizations)? If the donate too much of their time does the organization at which the individual volunteers have to provide health insurance?
It was a verbatim quote from FT. If you want to parse their use of terminology about Fed vs. state exchanges, feel free to take it up with them. But I'm inclined to think the substance of the article is as they describe.
"Before ACA HMO's did the same thing so the idea is not new "
And what was the complaint from consumers at the time? Loss of control over doctor choice, and the like, yes? If you want to control you MUST limit choice - either by excluding high cost providers or by forcing the consumer to pay a higher price. It's rather humorous to watch ACA taking "heat" for the exact same cost control effort for which the ins co initiatives were excoriated. It's a step in the right direction, IMO.
"BS made his decision to self insuren and you both want to blame that on ACA."
Only in your distorted world can a government impose a set of requirements, effectively doubling the cost of the product, and be absolved of any responsibility for the subsequent policy cancellations, doubling of premiums and the like.
"The truth is with a pre existing condition BS wife couldn;t get a lot of insurance"
The truth is... they had an affordable policy that was terminated because it didn't meet the requirements of ACA.
Yes, Lake, we can find it.
Here's the text from the FT article:
"Amid a drive by insurers to limit costs, the majority of insurance plans being sold on the new healthcare exchanges in New York, Texas, and California, for example, will not offer patients’ access to Memorial Sloan Kettering in Manhattan or MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, two top cancer centres, or Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, one of the top research and teaching hospitals in the country."
"Experts say the move by insurers to limit consumers’ choices and steer them away from hospitals that are considered too expensive, or even “inefficient”, reflects the new competitive landscape in the insurance industry since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, Barack Obama’s 2010 healthcare law."
Argue ALL you want, Lake, but the "affordable care act", in an effort to provide **affordable** care, will result in outfits such as Sloan Kettering being dropped.
And that is as it SHOULD be.
Look again. Sloan lists the INSURANCE companies that utilize (utilized? past tense?) their services. Not at all the same thing.
Come on, Lake, ****THINK*****. Do you HONESTLY believe that Sloan is going to post an article, a link, or anything, that advances the argument that they - Sloan - are being cut off because they charge excessively high rates?
It's not just about cash, it's about a (probable?) covenant violation this month. Soph referred to this in the cc.
The article originated with the Financial Times, hardly a right-wing rag, not FOX.
And I checked Sloan's website there's no mention about their exclusion one way or the other.
"funny you should choose Dickens as your expert on how to live. I suppose the England of his day is what you want to see the USA become."
You never cease to amaze with the naivete of your comments, Rog. Dickens' works were critical commentary on social environment of his day.
"Today as Freezing weather puts a lot of the country in its grip the homeless (those greedy homeless)..."
The point you seem to be missing, or purposefully ignoring, is that the majority are neither homeless nor hungry.
"seem willing not to pay taxes to pay for them. That is Greed."
Given our prior conversations on this subject you already know that I favor both welfare reform and tax increases.
"To Waltz into a Walmart and look down you nose on those who have to work there for whatever reason..."
Correct; they are there for whatever reason. And their presence there does not impose a responsibility on the Waltons to make up for whatever reason those folks chose to take a job at one of their stores.
"... buy there because the prices are lower than a store who paid higher wages is GREED."
Shopping for the lowest cost is prudent use of one's financial resources. The costs of our healthcare are overpriced in large measure because it is NOT possible to price shop medical services.
Yup. There will probably be similar arrangements with EGLE and GNK.
Certainly Peter G. at GNK has already been down this "road" once before with GMR.
The question you SHOULD be asking is how it is that individuals and families making any level of income always seem to be broke.
The problem for individuals is similar to that of government: they spend more than they take in. And, like government, many of the expenditures are not on necessities. No one NEEDS bigger cars and homes, fancier iPhones, more cable channels, nicer vacations.... People don't have wealth because they consumed rather than saving.
The following line from Dickens comes to mind:
"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery."
That standard of living is, and always has been, an illusion. It was funded by spending future income to pay for current consumption. Reality has caught up.
Your "solution" is to maintain this fiction by redistributing wealth from those who have lived below their means to those who refuse to live **within** their means. I am not a fan of this approach since it rewards bad behaviors. It doesn't deal with the fundamental problem that has led to individual's economic misery: their failure to live within their means.
Concentration of wealth has long been recognized as potentially problematic for social harmony; that's why inheritance taxes exist. In practice, resolution of this problem is generally done as a cross-generational effort. The approach you're advocating (?) is that you want the wealth stripped **as it's being accumulated** to fund an increase in consumption on the part of "the masses". This is a terrible idea as it exacerbates the problem that led to the inequality in the first place.
The problem here is "greed" on the part of masses. There is no solution until that is dealt with.
True. But it doesn't, and didn't, help when "conservatives" such as #$%$ Cheney were making "deficits don't matter" comments, and GWB was providing medicare recipients with a drug benefit that was never paid for.
It ain't just liberals that have caused the debt problem.
Lake, do you *think* about what you read?
"The consumers would pay for the solar panels and sell the power they produced back to Toshiba, which would take the place of an energy utility"
So, HOW will that happen without a "grid" of some sort?
"... sell it directly to consumers at a lower price than that of the grid."
And... what does that say about the economic viability of Germany's plan to be 50% renewable?
" The initial deployment will involve installing solar panels at about 7oo homes, including storage batteries added to the local network"
What is a "local network" if not a "grid"?
"The direct-to-consumers sales strategy will be the first for any solar-panel. The strategy may become a precedent for other solar developers to bypass the electric power grid and the electric utilities that control them."
You understand that the German model has no parallel in the US because solar installs here are mostly NOT done by the electric utiltiies?
"Toshiba believes that it can reduce costs and sell lower-priced power to consumers without relying on subsidies, which have attracted considerable controversy in recent months due to rise in electricity bills."
Again... what does this arrangement - the subsidies, etc. - say about the viability of Germany's approach to renewables?
This article touches on much of what is wrong with Germany's approach to renewable power...
I don't own solar. Never have. I'm "aware" of them but know absolutely nothing about the industry, nor do I have a regular source of information about the industry. Tend to think the industry is driven more by politics than economics. Since I don't trade solely on technicals, they've never "popped" onto my view screen. If you have a suggested screen based on technicals, I'm educable. Maybe. 8-)
As for the big gains... I've had a few over the years; I don't worry myself into a tizzy over missing more. And I'm comfortable enough without feeling the need to engage in a frenetic pursuit of catching the next triple. It's nice to kick back and not worry about day-to-day changes in the market.
Read the comments about the prior debt restructure.
Then listen again to the most recent CC and Soph's comments about an impending 4th quarter covenant violation.
Correct. I do not own any FRO at this point.
The astute trader is up 70% at the *moment*... assuming (s)he managed to buy at one of the low points over the past couple of months. Otherwise (s)he is up, what... 30% - 40%? Still a nice gain.
As with the other message thread... I don't usually trade in the attempt to score some short tem gains. Occasionally I will do so. But, usually not. I don't spend enough time watching price movements for that. I screen on fundamentals and work from there. I do use MA, bollinger, etc. in an effort to pick a buy point, but I don't trade solely on technicals.
If that makes me one of the sheep, so be it.
Actually, the EGLE short was profitable (as was the NM long). If anything, I erred in closing it out too quickly and left some on the table.
As for fundamentals.... it was those that led me to GNK back in 2008 - or whenever it was I originally bought the stock. That one was a 10 bagger.
At this stage in life, I invest mostly for stable income, not ST gains. I don't spend anywhere near enough time watching price movements to attempt to play the ST swings. Every once-in-a-while an opportunity pops up. Like when OSG went BK with enough assets to fully cover their debt and the bonds were selling at 30 cents on the dollar. Or when EGLE went to 8 or 9 based on a mostly fictional earnings report.
"When you take 95%of their wealth they are still one of the wealthiest families in the country."
And???? Is the entire justification for confiscating their wealth nothing more than the fact that they ARE wealthy?
And, similar to scs_dan's observation about family farms... how much of the Walmart wealth is tied up in the "family business"?
Is it your belief that every family business should be liquidated, and the proceeds redistributed by government, when the family head dies?
Who's fighting the tape?
In one of our exchanges I stated the opinion that it is possible to make money trading on technical indicators even when those trades might not be justified by fundamentals; it's all about (mis-)pricing. I was, for a period earlier this summer / fall, simultaneously short EGLE and long NM. Those positions were entered based on a combination of "fundamentals" and the anticipation of market pricing (call it "the tape", if you wish).
While I do not know for certain - he never announces his trades, I believe Audio takes long AND short positions when he believes the market has provided an opportunity to make a profit.
It is the case that he has proved himself knowledgeable about industry fundamentals and about specific companies. IIRC from your earlier messages, you do not look at fundamentals. Consequently it is unlikely that we - Audio and I and others - will agree with your general perspective on the industry. It would be incorrect, however, to conclude that we are not trading when we think it might prove profitable to do so.
I'm not currently spending enough time following the daily market moves to engage in short term trades - certainly not for FRO.