Stocks in Solar/Renewable Energy Industry?
The company I’m working for is willing to give me stock options at $.25/share… I never ownned stock before and I dont have any clue how this works, all I know is that if the company grows, my stock grows… I was woondering if Im getting a good deal. The company is still private and its going public this year..
Solar/Renewable Energy Industry a good place to invest your money? Does it yeild big return?
Windmill Farms answers:
Most likely, the options cost you nothing. What the company is saying is that at a later time, you are allowed to buy a certain number of shares of the company at 4/$1. If, at that time, the stock is $5, then you can turn right around and sell it on the open market, and make money. On the other hand, if the stock is 0.24, then your options are worthless.
How much the option is worth depends on the total number of shares issued. If there are 10,000 shares outstanding, and you are allowed to buy 100, then that’s 1% of the company. Pretty good, if it turns out to be the next Microsoft or Google. If there are 50 million shares, then that’s not much.
An initial public offering of a stock is typically at $5 or more. Are you VERY SURE that the company is going public this year? These are hard times, and a startup has to be doing well to go public. Personally, I would be very surprised to see a new solar company go public in the coming year.
If I actually had to pay money to buy the options, now, I would be doubly suspicious of whether the company is actually going public. Maybe they’re just trying to raise money (although, I don’t know how much they could get from you).
If you have a wealthy and successful relative, I would go to them with the particulars of the deal, and ask them what they would do. Don’t trust Y!A for major financial decisions (not even me!)
What energy company offers 100% renewable energy?
I had been researching the option. and it seems that what people can do while the technology catches up is to demand that your energy company uses renewable energy in what they supply to your house. You don’t need your own solar cells on the roof to make sure everything coming to your home is 100% renewable. Check out the video on this California energy company page to see what I mean: It is from XOOM energy in Charlotte, NC and they have 100% renewables in 15 states already.
Just one example of a power company that already offers a 35% and a 100% renewable package for anyone’s home.
Windmill Farms answers:
I’ts a tricky question because the energy required to produce a solar cell is about equivalent to it’s production in 15-20 years. The glass and silicone needed are heated to extreme temperatures and in the QA process a lot of panels are defected, so a real “renewable” is a hydro plant or a wind power generator that are produced using local materials and do not harm the environment in the installation process.
What do you guys think about Investing in Renewable Energy Companies?
I plan on investing some of my money in some stocks in a Renewable Energy company, perhaps China Biodiesel International, or Suntech Power Holdings. I plan on buying around $20,000 USD in stocks, assuming that the stock price will rise signifigantly in the next 10-20 years.
1. Do you guys think this would be a smart investment?
2. I’m only 14, and can’t contact a broker, so does anyone know how much one of their stocks cost, or an estimate of how much 1 stock will cost in 2014?
Windmill Farms answers:
Wow 14 years old with $20,000 to spend and wants to invest it! Not a new car or something?
About renewable energy investment, i work as a mech engineer in alternative energy field and it is definitely taking off well. The amount of opportunities out there in renewable resources will unfold inthe coming years and take over what we know today. Specifically, my interests lie in fuel cells combined w/ PV modules. So i would say to invest in that. The opportunities for profit are there and not going anywhere.
How are oil companies hurt by CO2 emissions reduction policies?
Everyone is aware of the claim that many climate skeptics and certain think tanks and perhaps other entities are often accused of being “in the pay of big oil”. Exxon seems to be the poster boy for that claim as far as the “big oil” side. Here are some things that are confusing me:
1. Amount of funding – It’s hard to get a firm grasp of the numbers for this. I’ve read about individuals receiving funding in the thousands of dollars and some institutions receiving the same or a bit more. I’ve also read numbers like totals over the past years in the single digit millions for all skeptics and think tanks, etc (and from all companies not just Exxon). I don’t understand how giving out thousands or ten of thousands of dollars at a time to a wide array of different people and groups could be any part of a high level strategy for a multi-billion dollar company. Can you see the CEO and CFO of Exxon having a discussion on giving $10k to Patrick Michaels or $100k to Heartland.
2. Consumers use less gas and oil – It is claimed that due to emission cuts, consumers would use less fossil fuels which would hurt the profits. I don’t know much about economics but I do know when a product has an “inelastic demand” and fossil fuels fit that profile. That means oil companies can just adjust the price upwards. People don’t buy (much) less gas based on price (inelastic).
3. Moving into renewable energy – Another claim is that oil companies will have to compete with renewable energies if fossil fuel use is restricted Well, if you visit any energy websites you would see that most major oil companies are going all out for renewable energy. A big one is biofuels. Another is algae based fuel. There are plenty of opportunities for subsidies and research grants and they’re taking full advantage. And this is not small money like the single digit millions handed to skeptics.
4. Hurting the market brand or image – I’m fairly certain that if oil companies were concerned about CO2 reductions causing their product image to be damaged, they would have a very different tactic than handing out $10k to a scientist to write a skeptical paper.
This is why I am so confused with the claim that oil companies are afraid of CO2 emissions cuts hurting their bottom line. The evidence seems to show that they sure are making a substantial effort fight climate policies and in fact they may benefit from it greatly.
So back to the original question and a few more.
1) How are oil companies hurt by climate policy from an economic point of view?
2) How are they not going to benefit from climate policy by embracing subsidized renewable energy markets?
3) When money was given from oil companies to skeptics and groups, who in the company made those decisions and what process and/or company budget guided those decisions?
4) Is there any evidence like emails, internal memos, recorded conversations, etc. which directly show that an oil company was giving money to a person or group specifically to cause misinformation or denial?
“Oil companies stand to lose trillions of dollars in future revenues if policy action is taken to slow carbon emissions.”
This is a common claim (trillions?). And this is the exact type of claim I am looking to see explained in economic terms.
@Markey: The cost of reducing CO2 emissions is a good point. However, I think that there are more companies that just the oil companies that would be in that situation.
And again, I’d like an economics argument that such costs wouldn’t simply be passed on to the consumer. I can find many examples where costs incurred but companies are simply incorporated into the final product price. As a matter of fact, many companies would not survive if they did not do this.
Windmill Farms answers:
Oil companies stand to lose trillions of dollars in future revenues if policy action is taken to slow carbon emissions. Their financial stake is colossal and undeniable (by honest and sensible people). In order to deal with this business challenge they have taken various measures, including deliberately helping to confuse people about climate science. This is a matter of historical fact.
Science, however, does not actually depend on anyone’s confused misunderstanding of it, inability to understand it, or unwillingness to try to understand it.
As difficult as it is for this reality to penetrate dense craniums, science does not depend on ANY opinions or actions or psychological hangups of ANY human who has ever lived or who ever will.
Oil companies have helped confuse a lot of people about this, but you can be sure that they did not become large and successful by being confused themselves.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes…election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
“ExxonMobil, year after year, pulls in more money than any company in history. Chevron’s not far behind [but] their value is largely based on fossil-fuel reserves that won’t be burned if we ever take global warming seriously.”
Edit: Re MIke: “Oil companies stand to lose trillions of dollars in future revenues if policy action is taken to slow carbon emissions. This is a common claim (trillions?). And this is the exact type of claim I am looking to see explained in economic terms.”
Actually, Mike, you don’t need to understand economics, or post longwinded anti-science “questions” here, you can get the explanation you claim to seek with Google & grade school multiplication:
1. There are about 1.5 trillion barrels of oil reserves globally http://www.bp.com/sectionbodycopy.do?categoryId=7500&contentId=7068481 plus of course pockets under Arctic Ocean etc, not yet discovered, plus shale plus tar, etc. And it’s clearly TRILLIONS of barrels.
2. Oil is now about $90 per barrel. The price varies, but the long term trend is up
3. Say oil company fossil fuel reserves are a conservative equivalent of 2 trillion barrels worth $80 per. Presto Mike: good old math from school, hated though it may have been: 2 x $80 = $160 trillion.
This is not exactly pocket change, even for scientists, and even if you believe they’re rolling in carbon tax funds with Billy and Rothschild Reptilians on the hollow moon. Http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AoO8wkbSNihO90WVve1VJ0kjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20120209141221AASOLgH
Edit2: To fully understand how & why the burden of a new cost or tax on a product is usually SHARED BETWEEN producer and consumer, a basic econ class would help. Or try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence
cost of renewable energy?
I am in high school doing a project for science. I am designing a house (blueprint form) that takes advantage of renewable energy sources. It is an average sized home, 2 floors, and I am including wind turbines, solar energy panels and geothermal heat pumps. Does anyone have any idea what the price of this would be around? and how it compares to the price of a normal house that uses nonrenewable energy sources?
I would appreciate any info you have on this
changed it to one story, about 900 square feet altogether.
Windmill Farms answers:
You have a lot of variables – like the cost of these systems in your area, what builders charge, etc.,etc. – it would really be hard to say.
Also, there are less expensive ways to achieve the same goal, such as using passive solar heating and passive cooling (instead of panels). Geothermal tends to be pretty expensive to install, but if you incorporate other measures, you wouldn’t really need it.
Using all three sources is fine for your project, but I think it would be “overkill” in a real project. You would be producing much more energy than you would need for a house that size.
Also keep in mind that in some areas, excess electricity produced can be sold back to the power company!
You might also get some ideas from this page on energy efficient home design.. Http://www.building-your-green-home.com/energy-efficient-home-design.html
Bottom line? I think it is feasible to build a green home for anywhere from 0 – 10% (or more) higher than a conventional home. There are all kinds of ways to save money on some areas, if you choose to spend more on others. Also, energy efficient homes (or LEED in some areas) may qualify for additional rebates on certain products.
And keep in mind that energy efficient homes will save thousands of dollars over the years in energy bills! This is often overlooked by those looking to build. It is really a case of “pay me now, or pay me later” – in terms of the environment, your health and your wallet.
Hope this helps!!
Powered by Yahoo! Answers