• Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Hello and welcome to Aussie Stock Forums!

To gain full access you must register. Registration is free and takes only a few seconds to complete.

Already a member? Log in here.

Global warming - Best Companies

Discussion in 'ASX Stock Chat' started by billhill, Oct 7, 2006.

sentifi.com

Aussie Stock Forum Sentifi Top themes and market attention on:

  1. billhill

    billhill

    Posts:
    381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    I'd say your right. Even if EVM don't see any government funding the fact the government is aiding the building of the worlds largest solar plant is a sign that attitudes are changing and their might be favourable legislation down the track.
     
  2. YChromozome

    YChromozome

    Posts:
    252
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    It pays off to be seen as green - 1st November 2006

    Renewable energy companies are poised for growth as Australian investors wise up to the economic implications of climate change and the increasing likelihood of carbon emission regulation.

    [snip]

    Portfolio Partners manager of sustainablity Amanda McCluskey said gas and LNG producers would be the first to benefit from growing awareness of climate change whereas low carbon fuel producers and renewable energy producers would benefit over the medium to long term.

    Ms McCluskey said companies such as AGL, Woodside, Origin Energy and Energy Developments would gain in a new low carbon framework whereas companies involved in metal smelting and building materials faced downside risk.

    More speculative investments such as geothermal energy company Geodynamics and carbon offset firm CO2 Australia also offer long-term investment opportunities.


    Interesting. If Woodside owns 10.42% of Geodynamics & Origin owns 14.27% of Geodynamics then maybe they are a good place to start . . .
     
  3. billhill

    billhill

    Posts:
    381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Actually if you check out Origin Energy's website they claim to provide 30% of australias grid connected Photovoltaic solar panels and they provide green choice electricity to consumers. Also are pretty heavily involved in gas.

    I think you may be on the money. Good diversified energy provider like origin certainly takes out a lot of the risk in investing in renewable energy.
     
  4. kennas

    kennas Searching

    Posts:
    15,109
    Likes Received:
    59
    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    All the brown coal producers must be good for global warming. :)
     
  5. Knobby22

    Knobby22 Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

    Posts:
    5,349
    Likes Received:
    609
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Icecream retailers:)
     
  6. insider

    insider

    Posts:
    1,302
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    I hear alot about global warming what about GLOBAL DIMMING?

    What is global dimming?

    Fossil fuel use, as well as producing greenhouse gases, creates other by-products. These by-products are also pollutants, such as sulphur dioxide, soot, and ash. These pollutants however, also change the properties of clouds.

    Clouds are formed when water droplets are seeded by air-borne particles, such as pollen. Polluted air results in clouds with larger number of droplets than unpolluted clouds. This then makes those clouds more reflexsive. More of the sun's heat and energy is therefore reflected back into space.

    This reduction of heat reaching the earth is known as Global Dimming.
     
  7. insider

    insider

    Posts:
    1,302
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
  8. Rafa

    Rafa

    Posts:
    1,035
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004

    I had heard of that before, but under the term Global Cooling...

    Interestingly, as you said, the more crap we chuck up the, the harder for the suns rays to hit the surface.

    To cut a long story shot, less radiation to vapoirise the oceans, hence less rainfall, and also a drop in temperatures...


    End result... cold and dry!


    Global warming and cooling are both side effect of pollution, how this will effect the long term balance of the ecosystem is anyones guess, but me thinks it won't be good.
     
  9. billhill

    billhill

    Posts:
    381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Global cooling is becoming less and less relevant as time goes by. This is because fuel sources are largely being cleaned up of their global dimming polutants before they are burned eg new diesel fuel standards with low sulpher content. So essentially the ratio of global warming pollutants to global cooling pollutants is growing larger and hence global warming is likely to win out.
     
  10. insider

    insider

    Posts:
    1,302
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    I watched a documentary that said that in the past 100 years the sun is only 95 % as bright as it used to be... Not good for solar power
     
  11. insider

    insider

    Posts:
    1,302
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    Oh yeah in the same doco... the hottest days on record for those paricular days of the year were the three days after 9/11 when all jets were grounded... What happened? Those days were 1.2 degrees hotter than usual... Which is alot considering that al it was that made the difference were vapour trails of aircrafts... Global dimming is also preventing our planet from being a pressure cooker...
     
  12. Dukey

    Dukey

    Posts:
    819
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2006

    My biology teacher was onto GLOBAL DIMMING 20+ years ago !! - she said it was happening because all the smart, well edumacated folks were only having one childrens, meanwhilst, all us dumbo's was having too many grommetts to count ??!!:horse:

    ------------------
    NB* tongue firmly in cheek - no offense intended ;)
     
  13. insider

    insider

    Posts:
    1,302
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    In one hundred years the average earth temperature will rise by 5 degrees.... WE'RE SCREWED
     
  14. Smurf1976

    Smurf1976

    Posts:
    9,331
    Likes Received:
    2,708
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    At some point we WILL stop burning fossil fuels simply because they are a limited resource.

    You can debate when they will run out or if we will simply stop using them first (either due to technology making them obsolete or concern over the environmental effects giving us little choice even without an alternative).

    Having done an awful lot of research into the subject, my personal expectation is that for oil we're damn close to peak production right now. I expect that to occur sometime this decade. Others differ but few put the date more than 25 years into the future and most agree it will be before 2020. In terms of time to prepare etc that's as good as being right now...

    I would then expect oil production to have fallen to the point of being a trivial source of energy (compared to today) by 2075 and by 2100 it's likely to be pretty much over to the point that a child born 100 years from now will have trouble believing that oil was ever a major industry. Crude oil then will be like whale oil now - you know it exists but who on ASF personally buys whale oil? Or has EVER seen the stuff? Not many.

    Gas isn't too much better. A peak in production sometime around 2030 - 2040 is my best guess and most seem to come up with similar dates. Some 2030, others 2050 but either way it's well within the lifetime of a child born today. With declining discovery and rapidly increasing production, espcially once it becomes the replacement for declining oil supply, the notion that "Australia has 100 years supply" will change awfully quickly. Indeed the plan to export 70%+ of our reserves has already changed the math rather drastically on that one.

    Factor in population growth and demand from China etc and per capita oil / gas availability in developed countries basically falls of a cliff. It becomes far more limited than most expect and does so rather quickly. We're talking about an 80% per capita fall in oil supply simply through China etc industrialising to Western levels. And that's without a fall in production.

    As for coal, there's still plenty but again it is ultimately a limited resource. Factor in a few % annual growth in demand and the 200 year supply ends up being a production peak sometime later this century. And that's if we're brave enough to keep using the stuff (or find a way to keep the emissions out of the air).

    So in 200 years time greenhouse gas emissions are near certain to be a LOT lower than today. That's the good bit. The downside is that emissions of particles etc causing global dimming will also be very much lower and that already emitted falls back to the ground pretty quickly. So no real effect from global dimming in 2200, but most of the greenhouse gases will still be in the air. We get the warming without the cooling - that's when the real trouble hits I would expect.

    For that matter, we don't really know the full extent of the effects from greenhouse gases already emitted. Not only does it take time to have an impact but we still have the cooling effect from particles, sulphur dioxide etc. Stop burning coal, oil and gas literally today and there's still quite a bit of global warming "baked in the cake" that we're yet to feel the effects of.

    Bottom line - we're going to have to live with warming no matter what we do now. All that we can change is the extent of it. And we're going to have to drastically cut the use of oil in little more than a generation with gas not far behind. We simply have no idea how to find enough of the stuff, even if it does exist somewhere, to carry on as we are.

    Personally, I think we'll end up pumping emissions from coal-fired power plants underground and the nuclear industry will greatly expand. There just isn't enough time for renewables to basically replace oil and gas whilst also doing away with coal and nuclear. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be developing renewables - to the contrary. It will take time to scale up and apply to mobile applications (aviation being by far the most difficult) and time is something we don't have too much of when it comes to energy supply. :2twocents
     
  15. billhill

    billhill

    Posts:
    381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Speaking of heating up the place, what do you guys think of the prospects of this company. Hastie group (HST). They are australias leading climate control company and also provide services systems to the middle east. Any warming is gonna be good for these guys.
     
  16. billhill

    billhill

    Posts:
    381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Johny Howard has announced today his support for a carbon trading sceme. ok its probably more a political move then actually a concern to reduce carbon emmisions but that at least puts the concept on the table. Wesfarmers CEO michael chaney who is currently heading the industry leaders was also in support of the idea. Looks like this issue is really starting to gain momentum. If this is implemented many of the afore mentioned companies are ideally placed. Bring it on.
     
  17. billhill

    billhill

    Posts:
    381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
  18. junmonkey

    junmonkey

    Posts:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Hydrogen and Nuclear. Everything else churns out too much crap compared to the power it produces.

    Anyone read about the launch of the new exclusive 7 series Beemers? Runs for 200km on a hydrogen tank + 500km on a secondary petrol tank.
     
  19. lancer

    lancer

    Posts:
    92
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    James Dines has the best uranium mining stock picks and if you read his theory on Global warming it makes perfect sense. I have owned his stocks in uranium for over a year and could not be happier, especially the last 2 months. Please read it!

    Lance
     
  20. billhill

    billhill

    Posts:
    381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Todays nuclear report announcement by the government has stirred up a bit of discussion on a few different threads. Now some people continue to claim that renewables cannot provide base load power. This in my opinion is ridiculous and small minded. OK so if i told you wind power could supply all the worlds energy demand 24hours a day 7days a week you would probably scoff but it can and this is the point i continually try to get across to people. Yes i'm probably preaching but i can't help myself :D .

    If we push the boundaries on all the renewables (wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, hydro, etc) we find that the solutions are within our grasp but people will say its too expensive. Well wind powers use to cost 5 times more in the late 1990's then what it does today. Cost are always coming down on these technologies and more clever efficient designs are developed. Below is a link to the future of wind energy and the companies that will make it a reality.

    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:High_Altitude_Wind_Power
     
Loading...

Share This Page