BestGreenStocks.Info Clean Technology Investing

BestGreenStocks.Info Clean Technology Investing
Renewable Power and Green Energy Wtocks

Best Green Stocks Websites Blogs News

Search Renewable Power stocks, clean energy companies

Custom Search

Green Futures

Green Futures

Popular Posts

Yuya Joe Blog

Twitter / CleanTechUpdate

Best Green Stocks Quarterly - FREE investing newsmagazine!

join our mailing list
* indicates required

Alternative Energy Stocks

Green Chip Stocks

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Toxic Energy still getting lion's share of funding

How Money Corrupts the Politics of Energy

by J. Mijin Cha, a Senior Policy Analyst in the Sustainable Progress Initiative at DÄ“mos

The last few weeks have not brought good news for those of us wanting a future powered by clean energy. The southern portion of the TransCanada pipeline is under construction. On top of that, New York State will lift its moratorium and allow fracking to occur in the state. If things continue along this path, not only will we miss out on the economic opportunity of renewables, we will also be forced to bear the substantial economic and environmental costs of extreme energy.


Fracking and tar sands are considered to be extreme forms of energy because of the amount of time, cost and destruction that go into extracting the resources. Oil and gas reserves that were easily accessible are largely tapped out and as energy prices increased, these more extreme and expensive forms of extraction became more viable. In the case of fracking, large volumes of toxic chemicals and water are injected into the ground to release natural gas in shale deposits. Tar sand mining uses open pits that destroy large surface areas and require enormous amounts of water.
The environmental consequences from extreme energy sources are well documented. Fracking causes several environmental hazards, including polluting water supplies, increasing earthquake risks in areas not normally prone to earthquakes, and making tap water flammable. Not only is tar sand mining dangerous, the pipelines that carry the oil spilt over 800,000 gallons of oil in Wisconsin and Michigan in just two years causing substantial environmental and economic damages to communities. These examples show just a fraction of the costs that will be imposed by an extreme energy future.
Of course, not everyone will bear these costs. The fracking industry, for one, is looking to profit handsomely, especially now that it can expand into New York. While TransCanada's profits fell last quarter, it still managed to pay out C$272 million to shareholders and have total revenue of C$1.8 billion. At the same time, the job creation and economic development promises these companies make to the impacted communities are unlikely to come through. Cornell's Global Labor Institutedefinitively debunked TransCanada's job creation number and the idea that fracking creates great, local jobs is a myth, as seen by the inability of fracking operations in Pennsylvania to deliver on the level of local job creation promised.
In order to guarantee these profits, the oil and gas industry spends a large amount of money lobbying and buying influence. In 2011, the oil and gas lobby spent nearly $150 million on lobbying. This year, they've already spent over $70 million. These numbers don't include themillions of additional dollars spent on campaign contributions either directly to candidates or to outside spending groups. Considering the amount of money they will make from an extreme energy future, it is a worthwhile investment. Not only does money talk, it makes policy.
Yet, it doesn't have to be this way. If our elected officials made policy decisions based on what was in the public- not private- interest, we would see meaningful investments in clean, renewable energy production. Renewable energy investments produce far more jobs and economic development than the extreme energy alternatives. And, as an added bonus, renewable energy production doesn't pollute water sources, increase earthquake risks, or make tap water flammable.
Creating an energy future that results in more jobs and no flammable tap water seems like a good idea to me. It's a shame most of our elected officials don't seem to agree.
This post is part of the HuffPost Shadow Conventions 2012, a series spotlighting three issues that are not being discussed at the national GOP and Democratic conventions: The Drug War, Poverty in America, and Money in Politics.
HuffPost Live will be taking a comprehensive look at the corrupting influence of money on our politics August 29th and September 5th from 12-4 pm ET and 6-10 pm ET. Click here to check it out -- and join the conversation.
 

Follow J. Mijin Cha on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@jmijincha

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Are China's solar energy stocks nearing bottom?


When will the stock price of China solar panel makers stop collapsing? When China starts switching to solar power. In other words, unless there are bottom feeders in the market with a long-term bullish outlook on the sector, 2012 promises to be a killer for China solar.
Yet, despite U.S. government’s anti-dumping charge against them on Friday, industry insiders said at a conference in Shanghai that they were hopeful for a rebound.
On Friday, the U.S. Commerce Department announced it would start charging 31% higher import duties on China made solar panels and equipment after a finding that Chinese solar panel makers were selling goods in the U.S. below market prices. If approved, the tariffs are expected to have a significant effect on the industry, which exports nearly $2 billion worth of solar panels to the U.S.
Immediately following the announcement, Shen Danyang, spokesman for the Ministry of Commerce in Beijing, said the U.S. was being protectionist.
“(Washington is) deliberately provoking trade friction in the clean energy sector, andsending the world a negative signal about trade protectionism,” Shen said in a statement.
Shares of China’s biggest solar makers have suffered a crushing defeat in the markets with JA Solar (JASO) wiping out 15% of its share price on Friday. The stock is now at the risk of being delisted, trading at just $0.89 a share. It’s down 33.5% year to date, but down even more — 84% — over the last year.
The European debt crisis hasn’t helped either. Nearly all of China’s solar market depends on solar subsidies in Europe. When countries like Italy opted to cancel those solar subsidy programs last year to save money, China solar stocks took it on the chin.
Suntech Power Holdings (STP) is down 74% over the last 12 months as investors holding these stocks will have to rethink profit margins now that President Obama has ordered the tariff hikes.
So when will this sector turn around?
“I believe the market will revive in 12 to 18 months,” Brian Lau, director of DEK Solar, said at the Sixth SNEC PV Power Expo, held in Shanghai from Wednesday to Friday.
The China Daily noted that in addition to the new tariff and European subsidy cuts, oversupply of polysilicon, a key component in manufacturing solar panels, has depressed the price of solar cells. Lau told conference attendees that the current surplus is driving solar prices down. That’s adding to the already dismal outlook for the sector. But that’s short term.
As prices become lower, there will be more customers.
“After all, the industry cannot always rely on subsidies,” Lau said. “Currently, more output is not what they want, what they want is a cost-effective, and accurate production line,” he said, noting the new platform will save space by 50%, and also largely reduce energy consumption, while improving the battery conversion rate,China Daily reported from Shanghai.
More than 90% of solar panel products made in China are bound for export. Industry insiders are hoping that as China gets serious about green technologies, from solar power to lithium batteries that power electric cars, Beijing will mandate its own use of solar energy in the near future, priming the pump for an industry that’s grown too dependent on the wrong countries.


Monday, March 26, 2012

California to invest $100 mil in electric car charging stations

By Jeff Siegel, Energy & Capital

It all went down on June 14, 2000...

California suffered its largest planned blackout since World War II.

Two months later, Governor Gray Davis called for an investigation into possible price manipulation in the wholesale electricity marketplace.

That's when Dynegy Inc. was officially accused of price manipulation and other fraudulent practices.

Fast-forward to 2012, a $120 million settlement is finally announced.

And what will the state do with that money?

Something that's going to help make us a boatload of cash!


Going to California

Twenty million dollars from this settlement will go to fund the reduction of consumer energy bills. That part doesn't concern us — unless, of course, you live in the Golden State.

The other $100 million?

Well, this is where it gets good...

Governor Jerry Brown announced last week the state will use the remaining $100 million to install 200 public fast-charging stations for electric vehicles, as well as 10,000 plug-in units at 1,000 different locations across the Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley, Los Angeles, and San Diego.

There are three ways we can profit from this.

The first is the most obvious: the companies that make the charging stations.

There are five that have a shot at getting some of this action:

Coulomb Technologies

ECOtality (NASDAQ: ECTY)

AeroVironment (NASDAQ: AVAV)

General Electric (NYSE: GE)

Siemens (NYSE: SI)


Playing the charging angle is tricky, though. Your choices are limited to small, speculative plays or huge corporations that simply have some exposure to this market.

Certainly there's opportunity here. But quite frankly, this isn't where the real money is.

If You Build It, They Will Come

Here's the interesting thing about California's focus on electric cars...

The state expects to have 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2025. Most of these will be electric.

And don't let the loudmouths in Washington or the media dissuade you. This is going to happen.

Of course, if you think I'm off base, that's fine. But I've spent enough time with lawmakers in California and top execs at the biggest automakers to know this path to 1.5 million is well under way.

Now, we also know that by 2015, all the major cities in California will have adequate infrastructure in place to accommodate these 1.5 zero-emission vehicles.

Last week's announcement just further validates California's commitment.

By the way, this announcement came just days after it was announced that a 160-mile stretch of Interstate 5 is now outfitted with fast-chargers that can charge an electric car in 20 minutes. They're spaced about 25 miles apart all along this Pacific Coast motorway.

My point is this: More than half of the states in this nation are now actively building out an infrastructure to support the integration of electric cars.

You may not be a fan of electric cars... You may think they're inefficient, unattractive, and unable to meet your daily driving needs.

But make no mistake about it; that should have no bearing on whether or not you decide to profit from them.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Aging atomic energy plants have major safety problems: IAEA

by Fredrik Dahl, Toronto Star

VIENNA — Eighty per cent of the world’s nuclear power plants are more than 20 years old, which could impact safety, a draft U.N. report says a year after Japan’s Fukushima disaster.

Many operators have begun programmes, or expressed their intention, to run reactors beyond their planned design lifetimes, said the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) document which has not yet been made public.

“There are growing expectations that older nuclear reactors should meet enhanced safety objectives, closer to that of recent or future reactor designs,” the Vienna-based U.N. agency’s annual Nuclear Safety Review said.

“There is a concern about the ability of the aging nuclear fleet to fulfill these expectations and to continue to economically and efficiently support member states’ energy requirements.”

The Fukushima tragedy was triggered on March 11, 2011, when an earthquake unleashed a tsunami that left 19,000 people dead or missing. It also smashed into the coastal power plant causing a series of catastrophic failures at the facility.

Images of the stricken plant shook public confidence in nuclear power and forced the nuclear industry to launch a campaign to defend its safety record.

IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano told Reuters last week that nuclear power is now safer than it was a year ago. The report said the “operational level of NPP (nuclear power plant) safety around the world remains high”.

It cited steady improvements in terms of unplanned reactor shutdowns in recent years.

But the 56-page IAEA document also highlighted aging nuclear plants, with eighty per cent of the 435 facilities more than two decades old at the end of last year.

This “could impact safety and their ability to meet member states’ energy requirements in an economical and efficient manner”, said the report, which has been submitted to IAEA member states but not yet finalized.

Operators and regulators opting for so-called long-term operation “must thoroughly analyze the safety aspects related to the aging of ‘irreplaceable’ key components”, it added.

LESSONS LEARNED?

About 70 per cent of the world’s 254 research reactors have been in operation for more than 30 years “with many of them exceeding their original design life”, it said.

The document was debated by the IAEA’s 35-nation governing board last week, almost exactly a year after the world’s worst nuclear accident in 25 years.

The tsunami overwhelmed Fukushima on Japan’s northeast coast, knocking out critical power supplies that resulted in a nuclear meltdown and the release of radiation.

The reactors were stabilized by December, but high radiation levels hamper a cleanup that is expected to take decades.

After the accident, Germany, Switzerland and Belgium decided to move away from nuclear power altogether to grow reliance on renewable energy instead.

But other states, for example fast-growing China and India, continue to look to nuclear energy to meet their growing energy needs, the IAEA report said, adding that some “are even accelerating their nuclear energy programmes”.

France is building its first “advanced” reactor and Russia is seeking to double its nuclear energy output by 2020, it said.

“All countries that are using nuclear power are much more serious about nuclear safety,” Amano said last week. But environmental group Greenpeace said no “real lessons” appeared to have been learned from Fukushima.

Monday, February 27, 2012

Penalties for high "order to trade" ratio will spur smarter algorhytms

Italian Borsa Move May Breed Brave New World of Algos

by John Bates, Chief Technology Officer, Progress Software

The Italian stock exchange Borsa Italiana's decision to clamp down on "excessive" HFT orders is likely to be a shot heard around the world. The Borsa is considering charging HFT firms for sending too many orders, particularly ones that do not result in trades, according to the FT.

Order-to-trade ratios have long been a concern of exchanges, ECNs and other trading venues as quote volumes go through the roof. If the number of orders being sent greatly outweighs the number of trades concluded, this can cause problems. All unnecessary orders (i.e. cancellations) create a load on exchanges; and they can provide a smokescreen to hide potentially abusive behavior (so called "quote stuffing").

I am willing to bet that the Borsa's move will be followed elsewhere. Most exchanges and alternative venues express concern that they will not be able to cope with the amount of orders coming down the pipe if they continue to grow. The SEC is considering charging HFT firms for cancelled trades, according to The Wall Street Journal. And interconnectivity between exchanges is increasing, so in order to trade smoothly between exchanges and effect arbitrage it is important that all destinations follow similar rules and procedures.

But many exchanges and ECNs, particularly in the U.S., have policies to encourage HFT rather than discourage. (Some venues even offer a tidy sum to attract large trades and liquidity providers by offering volume rebates.) The Borsa solution is the opposite of this -- it will discourage HFTs from experimentation.

But HFT players argue that it is necessary to dip their toes into the waters of the markets before they dive in and execute their trades. Their algorithms can dart in, test depth of book and trader/market sentiment, and swoop out -- often without doing any business.

The question here is, do you need to send out orders to test the market? What if you could watch and then act? Using trade orders is akin to being a venus fly trap, with your tentacles out waiting to catch the odd unwary fly. What if you could be more like an alert frog, waiting until you see the prey and then sticking your tongue out to catch the right one -- or lots of them?

Testing the waters with quotes is probably the most harmless issue in HFT. Other issues include quote stuffing, where HFTs "stuff" the book on a particular share with millions of orders, so that others cannot get in to trade. This is a kind of front-running, where the quote stuffer gets the deal done before the market can move on him.

On balance, I think the Borsa has the right idea. The Borsa benefits by having a more bulletproof trading platform, less sensitive to quote stuffing and errors. "Real" players are rewarded with real liquidity and done deals, while those who may have a more hidden agenda are discouraged from quoting.

I wonder if this is a brave new world for algorithms, where they have to pay a penalty for high frequency strategies. If so, they will have to change. The Borsa's solution, especially if it is embraced by other trading destinations, may spawn a new generation of intelligent "sensing" algos.

Today's algos that are using techniques to flood the market will be replaced by smarter ones that are more like the canny frog. They will weigh up their chances and dart their tongues out and catch the fly. Or they will miss the fly and learn from their mistakes, correcting and tweaking their techniques. You can be like the frog, but in order to do it you have to become more sophisticated. Weigh it up, ask some questions.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-bates/borsa-italiana-hft_b_1298943.html

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Green energy stocks in bargain-basement territory

The plunge in pure-play green-tech stocks

Company Country Sector Symbol Exchange Price (Feb. 23) Change since January, 2008

Suntech Power China Solar panels STP NYSE $3.23 (U.S.) -96%
JA Solar China Solar cells JASO Nasdaq $1.94 -92%
First Solar U.S. Solar modules FSLR Nasdaq $37.20 -86%
SunPower U.S. Solar panels SPWR Nasdaq $7.91 -94%
Q-Cells Germany Solar cells QCE Frankfurt €0.32 -99%
Renewable Energy Norway Silicon REC Oslo 4.62 kroner -98%
Vestas Wind Systems Denmark Wind turbines VWS Copenhagen 57.10 kroner -90%
Gamesa Spain Wind turbines GAM Madrid €2.67 -91%
Suzlon Energy India Wind turbines SUZL Mumbai 27.95 rupees -93%


Green energy's deadly doldrums

by RICHARD BLACKWELL, Globe and Mail

The numbers are dismal. The stock of Denmark’s Vestas Wind Systems AS, the world’s biggest wind turbine maker, has plunged 90 per cent over the past four years. The United States’ leading solar firm, First Solar Inc., (FSLR-Q35.58-1.62-4.35%) has fallen from more than $250 (U.S.) to just over $40 in that same period. And Norway’s huge solar equipment maker Renewable Energy Corp. is trading at one-fortieth of its price at the start of 2008.

It’s a similar story at Spain’s turbine maker Gamesa Corp., China’s big solar cell maker Suntech Power Holdings, (STP-N3.06-0.15-4.67%) and India’s turbine manufacturer Suzlon Energy Inc. All have seen their shares tank over the past few years. Q-Cells, Germany’s huge solar cell maker, had to restructure its debt to stave off bankruptcy.

What’s happened to these former high fliers? “They’ve been hit with a quadruple whammy,” said Tom Konrad, editor of the AltEnergyStocks.com website. The key issues:

-Low natural gas prices (NG-FT2.52-0.03-1.10%) have made that fuel a cheap means of generating power, cutting into renewables.

-Massive new production, particularly in China, has caused a glut of solar panels, pushing prices down sharply.

-The political climate has become less favourable to renewables, both in Europe and North America.

-The global economic downturn has prompted governments and corporations to tighten support and spending on renewables. And things could get worse: On Thursday, Germany said it will cut its solar subsidies more quickly than expected.

Mr. Konrad said he thinks some of these renewable-energy companies – particularly in the solar sector – are ready for a rebound. However, they are not likely to get back to their 2007-08 levels in the short or medium term, he said. Some companies probably will disappear through consolidation, although the incentive to buy up rivals right now is diminished by the overcapacity in the sector.

Analyst MacMurray Whale of Cormark Securities Inc. said he thinks it is unlikely there will be any kind of widespread recovery among renewable stocks until the global economy improves. “Green [is seen] as a luxury you can afford when everybody feels rich,” he said.

While some solar stocks have improved a bit recently, there will likely not be any significant rebound in that sub-sector until there is consolidation and production capacity is reduced, Mr. Whale said. “There is just not enough demand to soak up that capacity. We are seeing bankruptcies and real struggles, and we are going to continue to see that.”

Big companies, such as Vestas and First Solar, have strong balance sheets, he said, allowing them to survive – albeit with lower margins – until things pick up. But stock prices are not going to show any significant recovery for a considerable time, he predicts. “They could bounce around [at these levels] for years.”

The approach many investors are taking is to look for individual stocks in the clean-technology space that appear to have some momentum, Mr. Whale said. Some are buying Canadian natural gas engine-maker Westport Innovations, (WPT-T43.961.533.61%) for example because it is a play on low gas prices. But they are not diving into renewables more broadly.

Ric Palombi, a portfolio manager at McLean & Partners in Calgary, said the big pure-play clean technology firms pop up on his screen as potential investments because the stocks are so cheap at the moment. But that’s not a good enough reason to invest, because the current prospects for the industry are still poor until governments start to spend on the sector again. Until that happens, “What is the catalyst? What is going to move the stock?” he asks.

A better bet for investors is to consider utilities, power producers or developers who can actually take advantage of the downward pressure in equipment prices. Mr. Palombi said he owns Brookfield Renewable Energy Partners LP, (BEP.UN-T27.39-0.20-0.72%) a Canadian dividend-paying stock with power plants in Canada, the U.S. and Brazil. In contrast to the equipment makers, it has seen its stock rise about 35 per cent since the beginning of 2008.

Friday, February 24, 2012

Green stocks will get hit if oil falls on China slowdown

In addition to a rapidly down-turning construction sector and tightening credit at the Big 4 banks, the World Bank also believes China requires institutional reform, particularly more oversight of huge state-owned corporations.

Even though green energy stocks are alternatives to oil, short term price swings are often influenced by swings in oil pricing, which is likely headed down in coming months, based on the Chinese slowdown.

SUMMARY: Perhaps lighten up on green energy stocks and funds until a correction takes the oil price and the clean power sector down, and when everyone is panicking, that will be the time to go back in and bulk up.


China faces an economic crisis without reforms

by Bob Davis in Beijing, WSJ

CHINA could face an economic crisis unless it implements deep reforms, according to a report by the World Bank and a Chinese government think tank, which urges Beijing to scale back its vast state-owned enterprises and make them operate more like commercial firms.

The recommendation is contained in ‘China 2030’, a report set to be released Monday, according to a half-dozen individuals involved in preparing and reviewing it.

The report, which addresses some of China's most politically sensitive economic issues, is designed to influence the next generation of Chinese leaders who take office starting this year, these people said. It challenges the way China's economic model has developed during the past decade under President Hu Jintao, when the role of the state in the world's second-largest economy has steadily expanded.

China 2030 cautions that China's growth is in danger of decelerating rapidly and without much warning, as has occurred with many high-flying developing countries once they reach a certain income level, a phenomenon that development economists call the "middle-income trap". A sharp slowdown could deepen problems in the banking sector and elsewhere, the report warns, and could prompt a crisis, according to those involved with the project.

It recommends that state-owned firms should be overseen by asset-management firms, say those involved in the report. It also urges China to overhaul local government finances and promote competition and entrepreneurship.

"China's state-owned sector is at a crossroads," said Fred Hu, chief executive of Primavera Capital Group, a Beijing investment firm. The Chinese government must decide "whether it wants state-led capitalism dominated by giant state-owned corporations or free-market entrepreneurship".

Even ahead of its release, the report has generated fierce resistance from bureaucrats who manage state enterprises, according to several individuals involved in the discussions.

China's political heir apparent, Xi Jinping, now vice president, has given few clues about his economic policies. Analysts expect the high-profile report will help to shape discussions among Mr Xi and his allies about whether to make changes to a state-led economic model that has alarmed Chinese private entrepreneurs and is becoming a source of growing tension between China and its main trading partners, including the US.

The report's authors argue that having the imprimatur of the World Bank and the Development Research Center, or DRC – which reports to China's top executive body, the State Council – will add political heft to the proposals. The World Bank is widely admired in Chinese government circles, particularly for its advice in helping China design early market reforms.

"The report lays out recommendations for a development growth path for the medium term, helping China make the transition to become a high-income society," said World Bank President Robert Zoellick in a statement announcing the report would be released.

Neither the World Bank nor DRC would comment specifically on the China 2030 findings.

Chinese Vice Premier Li Keqiang, who is expected to be named premier next year, endorsed the Chinese-World Bank project when Mr Zoellick proposed it during a trip to Beijing in September 2010. Its authors are also counting on the Number 2 official at the DRC, Liu He, who is also a senior adviser to the all-powerful Politburo Standing Committee, to help ensure that its findings are considered seriously by top leaders. Mr Liu declined to comment.

Among the most contentious areas in the report: how to manage state-owned enterprises, which dominate the nation's energy, natural resources, telecommunications and infrastructure industries and have easy access to low-interest loans from state-owned banks.

US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and other Western officials argue that subsidies to those firms distort international competition. Domestically, critics complain that the firms choke off internal competition, use monopoly profits to expand into other businesses and pay only meager dividends.

The World Bank and DRC argue that asset-management firms should oversee the state-owned companies, say those involved in the report. The asset managers would try to ensure that the firms are run along commercial lines, not for political purposes. They would sell off businesses that are judged extraneous, making it easier for privately owned firms to compete in areas that are spun off.

"China needs to restrict the roles of the state-owned enterprises, break up monopolies, diversify ownership and lower entry barrier to private firms," said Mr Zoellick in a talk to economists in Chicago last month.

Currently, many state-owned firms have real-estate subsidiaries, which tend to bid up prices for land, and have helped to create a housing bubble that the Chinese government is trying to deflate.

The report also recommends a sharp increase in the dividends that state companies pay, which would boost budget revenue and pay for new social programs, said those involved with the report.

Chinese and US economists say that dividend money from profitable state-owned firms now are often directed to unprofitable ones by the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission, or SASAC, which regulates the firms and tries to ensure their profitability.

"It's an innovative proposal," said Yiping Huang, a Barclays Capital economist.

But others argue that the proposals don't go far enough. Neither the World Bank nor the DRC proposed privatising the state-owned firms, figuring that was politically unacceptable.

SASAC and the Communist Party's personnel agency name heads of state-owned firms and can replace them, giving the government great sway over the firms' decision-making. It isn't clear whether the report recommends changing that arrangement or proposes how the asset managers should be hired and fired.

How to handle such personnel "was the most contentious issue and was debated until the last hour," said a "China 2030" participant, who added that participants often differed on how much credit should be given to the state for China's economic development and how big a role the government and party should continue to play.

Even so, said individuals involved with the report, SASAC bitterly criticized the proposal in meetings of the "China 2030" group and would strive to block them from coming into being, out of concern it could lose power. Indeed, many of the recommendations are considered so politically fraught that the Chinese insisted that the report be labelled a "conference edition" – meaning that it is subject to change after comments at the Beijing conference where it will be presented Monday. SASAC didn't immediately respond to a request to comment.

Mr Liu, the DRC official, was among the top Chinese staffers who drafted the current five-year plan and is considered close to China's current leaders as well as Mr Xi, the presumptive next head of China's government and party. Mr Liu, who meets regularly with US officials, has argued publicly that foreign pressure and ideas can help build momentum for change in China.

"Liu decides the flow of information, gives policy makers recommendations and organizes meeting agendas," said Cheng Li, a China scholar at the Brookings Institution in Washington DC.

In a signal of the challenges now faced by Chinese businesses, a gauge of nationwide manufacturing activity was slightly higher in February but remained in contractionary territory for the fourth straight month. The preliminary HSBC China Manufacturing Purchasing Managers Index was 49.7 in February, compared with a final reading of 48.8 for January, HSBC said yesterday. A reading below 50 indicates contraction from the previous month.

China now is vulnerable to a sharp slowdown, said Jun Ma, a Deutsche Bank China economist, because it relies too heavily on industries that copy foreign technology and doesn't produce enough breakthroughs of its own, a problem that limits the growth of many developing countries.

South Korea was able to keep growing rapidly after it hit a per capita income level of $5,000 – about where China is today – because it pushed innovation. China lags behind South Korea badly in patents produced per capita, he said, an important measure of innovation.

China 2030 urges a big expansion of early-childhood education and nutrition to make sure that poorer Chinese youngsters don't quickly fall behind wealthier ones, said those involved with the report. While such programs are commonplace in wealthier countries and Latin America, they pose a particular challenge in China because of its system of revenue collection.

Chinese local governments often draw much of their revenue from the sale of land, rather than from taxes. That has led to deep resentment among poorer Chinese as village officials underpay for land on the outskirts of cities and sell at steep profits to real-estate developers. The report urges that Chinese social spending be funded more by dividends from state-owned firms and by property, corporate and other taxes.

"We'll be recommending that all resources be put on budget," Mr Zoellick said in his Chicago talk, and "that public finance needs to be transparent [and] accountable."

Additional reporting: Kersten Zhang and Aaron Back

Friday, February 10, 2012

Green Stoppcks Central likes Zoltek (ZOLT)

Zoltek (ZOLT) Reports Big Profit Surge, Shares On The Up & Up

Posted by Tate Dwinnell, February 3, 2012, Green Stocks Central

Zoltek (ZOLT) has been one of the best green stock performers in recent months nearly doubling in price and it’s going to pop again tomorrow as the company reported a big surge in profit. The company posted a profit of .28/share on revenues of $47 million vs the analyst estimates for .05 in EPS on revenues of $46 million. That’s a huge improvement over the year ago quarter when the company posted a loss of .05 share on revenue of just $33 million. The CEO said the wind turbine business represents its biggest growth potential and continues to improve. He expects the large wind turbine segment to increase 15 – 25% per year for the next decade. Back in February CEO Rumy declared that growth is coming and the stock surged for a few days. However, it didn’t take long for the stock to take another big nosedive. If indeed, the wind energy industry is entering a sustained growth phase shares look enticing at current levels. This is great news for an industry that has really struggled.

“We are pleased to report strong gains on both the top and bottom lines in the first quarter and continuation of the momentum we experienced in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011,” said Zsolt Rumy, Zoltek’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. ”Our performance resulted from several internal and external factors. Our net revenues were up almost a third, despite the drag on our reported sales from the decline in the value of the Euro during the quarter, reflecting our expanded customer base in the wind energy business and increased sales of composite intermediate products. Our margins were positively impacted by a more profitable product mix, higher utilization of our production capacity, better operational performance, lower raw material costs and the decline in the values of the Hungarian Forint and Mexican Peso. We believe our first quarter results evidence that our carbon fiber business is on a path to increase significantly this year.”

Technically, the stock looks outstanding and you can’t say that for many green stocks these days. ZOLT should move to the top of most green stock watchlists based on the technical improvement and the results last quarter. The stock pushed above the 200 day moving average today with heavy volume and it’s up another 9% in after hours trading. While extended in the short term, any pull backs represent a nice opportunity for an entry.

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Climate change implications indicate global rethink required

Peak Nature and the transformation of capitalism, by Timothy Morton, Adbusters.org

Nature is the featureless remainder at either end of the process of production. Either it’s exploitable stuff, or value-added stuff. Whatever: it’s basically featureless, abstract, gray. It has nothing to do with nematode worms and orangutans, organic chemicals in comets and rock strata. You can scour the Earth from mountaintop to Marianas Trench. You will never find Nature. That’s why I put it in capitals. I want the reader to see that it’s an empty category looking for something to fill it. Gray goo.

Capitalism did away with feudal and pre-feudal myths such as the divine hierarchy between classes of people. In so doing, however, it substituted one heck of a giant myth of its own: Nature. Nature is precisely the lump that preexists the capitalist labor process. Martin Heidegger has the best term for it: standing reserve, Bestand.

Bestand means “stuff,” as in the old ad from the 1990s, “Drink Pepsi: Get Stuff.” There is an ontology implicit in capitalist production, then, that is strictly materialism as defined by Aristotle. Funnily enough, however, this materialism is not fascinated with material objects in all their manifold specificity. It’s just stuff. This viewpoint is the basis of Aristotle’s problem with materialism. Have you ever seen or handled matter? Have you ever held a piece of “stuff”? Sure, I’ve seen lots of objects: Santa Claus in a department store, snowflakes and photographs of atoms. But have I ever seen matter or stuff as such? Aristotle says it’s a bit like searching through a zoo to find the “animal” rather than the various species such as monkeys and mynah birds. Marx says exactly the same thing regarding capital. “The ‘expanded’ form [of the commodity] passes into the ‘general’ form when some commodity is excluded, exempted from the collection of commodities, and thus appears as the general equivalent of all commodities, as the immediate embodiment of Commodity as such, as if, by the side of all real animals, there existed the Animal, the individual incarnation of the entire animal kingdom – or as if, to use an example from commercial capitalism, by the side of all real spices, there existed the Spice.” As Nature goes, so goes matter. The two most progressive physical theories of our age, ecology and quantum theory, need have nothing to do with it.


Research information on Peak Nature concept

Green Mutual Fund Investing Info

Clean Power Investing; Best Green Stocks for 2009 / 2010

Rare Earth Stocks Research

Energy and Capital

Original Joe College Blog