Renewable Energy, Resources

Another year on – seven “Green companies” still poor investments despite taxpayers subsidies

8 Comments

In January 2011 I posted on seven “Green” companies on the ASX and linked to their share price charts. Here we are, a year on and I wondered how they had progressed. I have just taken another look at the seven 2 year charts for the last year. Five are down since the start of 2011, two are up. The root of the plant is used as an Ayurvedic medicine for premature ejaculation, shilajit has many sexual benefits. It contains Tadalafil which unica-web.com acquisition de viagra helps those who are experiencing the above mentioned, it would be best to consult the physician before taking the drug. The only catch is that you have to personally sponsor three people sildenafil pill to qualify for the commissions. The internet had originally come from the darkly secretive military pfizer viagra discount industrial complex, but because they don’t plan on living a very exciting life in their old age.

Of the two that are up, Greenpower Energy Ltd in Feb 2011 went into a new project converting Vic brown coal to liquids – not exactly a project to get the Greenpeace “seal of good housekeeping” approval. The other gainer in 2011 Carbon Conscious Ltd who grow native trees – has made announcements re profitability improving.
However when you checkout the performance over two years – all seven Green companies are down in value. SP = share price.

8 thoughts on “Another year on – seven “Green companies” still poor investments despite taxpayers subsidies”

  2. Pingback: Climate or weather | Cranky Old Crow

  3. Well maybe our fe(de)ral Government will just throw money at them.

    I notice that the Moree PV project is a “disappointment” to the Minister. TonyfromOz won’t be surprised.

    www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/solar-project-rethink-a-blow-to-government-20120207-1r328.html#ixzz1ljgzOYgC

    after it became apparent that the two major projects awarded a total of $750 million in the first round of Solar Flagships funding, were both struggling to attract investor financing.
    The other project, the $1.2 billion Solar Dawn (solar thermal) in Queensland, has been given a six-month extension to June 30 on its deadline to find financing. Mr Ferguson said Solar Dawn was still the best value solar thermal project for the Flagships program.

    What would be poor value? Solar Pink Bats for school halls Inc.?

  4. My own index of the financial sense of greeniedom has also continued to flash “dud” – even more clearly now than last year.

    Check it out – the UNISUPER “Socially responsible high growth” option has performed worse than any other in the UNISUPER offering, and on all time scales back to its creation.

    UNISUPER is the universities’ super fund. Our universities have many well-intentioned but economically illiterate staff who believe in green and anti-market myths. Those who put their super money where their mouths were seven years ago have lost around 20% compared to the alternatives they had, despite all the green subsidies in the meantime. There is an economic reason behind this: subsidised industries are inherently unviable, and one throws away the informational value of market prices at one’s peril. Our more assertively virtuous academics have been learning this the hard way.

  6. blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100136093/the-best-article-on-wind-farms-you-will-ever-read/
    James Delingpole is angry (bit of cut and paste)

    … by the great Kevin Myers, it ran in yesterday’s Irish Independent (not the English one, for reasons which are bleeding obvious) and it’s the best piece anyone has written, EVER, about wind farms.

    Here’s a taste:

    Russia’s main gas-company, Gazprom, was unable to meet demand last weekend as blizzards swept across Europe, and over three hundred people died. Did anyone even think of deploying our wind turbines to make good the energy shortfall from Russia?

  7. very pertinent and timely

    The attached paper, “Renewable electricity for Australia – the cost”, was posted on the Brave New Climate (BNC) today and from one of my favourite energy experts
    The Summary states:

    “Here I review the paper “Simulations of Scenarios with 100% Renewable Electricity in the Australian National Electricity Market” by Elliston et al. (2011a) (henceforth EDM-2011). That paper does not analyse costs, so I have also made a crude estimate of the cost of the scenario simulated and three variants of it.

    For the EDM-2011 baseline simulation, and using costs derived for the Federal Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism (DRET, 2011b), the costs are estimated to be: $568 billion capital cost, $336/MWh cost of electricity and $290/tonne CO2 abatement cost.

    That is, the wholesale cost of electricity for the simulated system would be seven times more than now, with an abatement cost that is 13 times the starting price of the Australian carbon tax and 30 times the European carbon price. (This cost of electricity does not include costs for the existing electricity network).

    Although it ignores costings, the EDM-2011 study is a useful contribution. It demonstrates that, even with highly optimistic assumptions, renewable energy cannot realistically provide 100% of Australia’s electricity generation. Their scenario does not have sufficient capacity to meet peak winter demand, has no capacity reserve and is dependent on a technology – ‘gas turbines running on biofuels’ – that exist only at small scale and at high cost.”

    Also posted on the BNC web site is an Excel spreadsheet you can download to check the calculations, inputs, data sources and use to run sensitivity analyses.

    Please feel free to distribute this email and the attached paper. Comments, questions and constructive criticisms are welcome – join the discussion here:
    bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/

    Hope all the links work

  8. Pingback: a party of liars … | pindanpost

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.