10 replies to this topic

[Geomean]

Goldman Sachs which makes up 7.65% of the Dow Industrials (a price weighted index) printed a TDSEQ DeMark Sequential ™ sell signal in the hourly chart at the 12:30 CST bar .  It would print a TDSEQ in its daily chart if it closes tomorrow above 211.75. It is currently at 225.12 and the 1.128, 1.414 and 4.661 fib extensions from prior inflection highs. The 261.8 fib extension from its 9/29/16 1-2 low is at 227.31.

[Geomean]

GS is currently up 3.17%.   GS's 3.17% gain divided by its Dow weight of 7.85% is 0.39 %.  The Dow up currently 0.31%.  Without GS the Dow would be down.

[dasein]

Geo - - caol has been strong lately - IMO the coal BKs were manipulated gifts to important people...

 

http://www.powermag....hq_v=3f6419e7cf

[alexnewbee]

Thks, good observation re GS
I am short it as of yesterday via DOW @19200

[Geomean]

Geo - - caol has been strong lately - IMO the coal BKs were manipulated gifts to important people...

 

http://www.powermag....hq_v=3f6419e7cf

Hi Karen, Last I checked there were no new coal plants being built in US except a clean coal demo in the south.  Solar and Wind are @1/3 the capital costs of coal and 1/5th nuclear without the fuel burden per installed KwH capacity.  Clean coal tech is even more expensive.  Here's a table of EIA comparing gas vs coal vs nuclear op/maintenance costs.  No capital costs in the table.  http://www.eia.gov/e.../epa_08_04.html  Int'l Energy Agency just updated its projections to take into account new China programs/reduced Asian oil demand, says oil demand is currently peaking. Article last month in O&J Journal by 6 Chinese oil people/oil academics predated IEA and stated same conclusion re Chinese demand.  It's a sea change.  In the long run the low cost solutions should prevail. Most new capacity last 5 years world wide is solar and wind. Mass use of electric cars would provide all the storage the grid needs for solar and wind power.  Germany has reached the point that on some days there is no grid demand for coal fired electricity.

ATB

Geo

[leverage4]

 

Geo - - caol has been strong lately - IMO the coal BKs were manipulated gifts to important people...

 

http://www.powermag....hq_v=3f6419e7cf

Hi Karen, Last I checked there were no new coal plants being built in US except a clean coal demo in the south.  Solar and Wind are @1/3 the capital costs of coal and 1/5th nuclear without the fuel burden per installed KwH capacity.  Clean coal tech is even more expensive.  Here's a table of EIA comparing gas vs coal vs nuclear op/maintenance costs.  No capital costs in the table.  http://www.eia.gov/e.../epa_08_04.html  Int'l Energy Agency just updated its projections to take into account new China programs/reduced Asian oil demand, says oil demand is currently peaking. Article last month in O&J Journal by 6 Chinese oil people/oil academics predated IEA and stated same conclusion re Chinese demand.  It's a sea change.  In the long run the low cost solutions should prevail. Most new capacity last 5 years world wide is solar and wind. Mass use of electric cars would provide all the storage the grid needs for solar and wind power.  Germany has reached the point that on some days there is no grid demand for coal fired electricity.

ATB

Geo

 

 

I think coal is a non-starter due primarily to cost rather than government regulations.  Reopening coal mines and building new coal-fired plants is like having a program to replace cell phones with land lines.

 

Lev

[dasein]

  Here's a table of EIA comparing gas vs coal vs nuclear op/maintenance costs.  No capital costs in the table.  http://www.eia.gov/e.../epa_08_04.html

 

just found this but havent read it yet -

 

http://institutefore...r_lcoe_2015.pdf

 

and

 

http://www.ewp.rpi.e...ower Plants.pdf

 

thanks GEO - that table doesnt break it down to coal and wind etc so I am looking - thanks for the impetus... it also doesnt compare clean coal with dirty coal costs! - also renewables is hard to calculate because there are so many subsidies involved and without the subsidies they are not economically feasible....I like Hydro - it is the cheapest, but they dont like to build that here anymore and NYS gave away its hydro for pennies to privatisation...Canada still has its own.

Edited by dasein, 02 December 2016 - 10:54 AM.

[Geomean]

I've advised developers and invested in the wind energy business for almost 40 years and outlined and developed the "avoided cost principle" for one of the co-founders of the American Wind Energy Association in the most nascent beginnings of the industry (and outlined the need for an industry association) . 

 

This "avoided cost" analysis was used in AWA's lobbying efforts in the late 1970's and was ultimately enshrined in the Public Utility Reform Act of 1978 )(PURPA) (which Bob Dole of Kansas introduced into Congress) and required public utilities to purchase power from independent power producers at at least the utility company's "avoided cost",   That legislation is credited with creating the independent power industry in  the US.

 

Multiple projects along the way got me schooled on the costs and the political economics of the energy industry. 

 

Many countries are phasing out incentives for wind at this point, and given the cost structure I suspect more will be doing so in the future.  While incentives still "goose" the economics, many projects can now proceed without such incentives (but develpers would not like to admit it even where a project can stand on its own  :-)!

 

In the 1980's I was involved in finishing the construction of industrial projects that required particulate and toxic gas removal.  Because of public health concerns, after the Clean Air Act of 1966, particulates and noxious toxic gases from industrial processes had to be removed from effluent streams . 

 

It is these "regulations" that affected the cost of continued operation of existing coal fired power plants.  They can't compete unless they are free to pollute.  The prices of bag houses and electrostatic precepitators are too high.  (This is not CO2 these studies are addressing). 

 

If the political economics are reversed to permit coal plants to dirty the environment and sicken the population, then obviously, if one also assumes the capital costs are already paid for, eliminating the Clean Air Act reguirements would change the economics. 

 

But then, all we are doing in increasing the overall costs to society.  The cited studies acknowledge these  Clean Air Act costs are not included in its analysis and existing power plants are not economic if they are required to comply with the Clean Air Act rules on particulates and toxic gases.

 

I lived in this country when the particulate and toxic gas levels were their highest.  I doubt anybody who has experienced such conditions would want to  turn back the clock.  Folks in all the big cities in the US literally gagged from all cr*p in  the air.

 

For those younger, today's Beijing looks like what a world with no regulation would be.  China has horrible public health outcomes due to air pollution.

Edited by Geomean, 02 December 2016 - 03:25 PM.

[gameover]

Thks, good observation re GS
I am short it as of yesterday via DOW @19200

 

 

good luck with that

 

look for an explosive move above 19200 before the close

 

huge gap up coming Sunday night

[alexnewbee]

 

Thks, good observation re GS
I am short it as of yesterday via DOW @19200

 

 

good luck with that

 

look for an explosive move above 19200 before the close

 

huge gap up coming Sunday night

 

first you pay me 10$ which you lost.