The ad we’re looking at today is, of course, a pitch for solar power and for some specific solar technology companies… but we don’t get that info up front. If you look at the transcript of the pitch for Nick Hodge’s Early Advantage newsletter ($799/yr), they don’t “let the cat out of the bag” that it’s actually solar power they’re talking about until page 18. Out of 45 pages.
It’s true, I love you — why else would I sit through all this hyperbole? 45 pages doesn’t make Hodge the worst offender, to be sure, but that’s a lot of building scenarios and spinning tales.
So… shall we find out what these stocks are for you? He teases two, both of them quite small… and this time there’s no overlap with the “Endless Free Power” pitches from Dr. Kent Moors that are still flooding many of your inboxes and driving a lot of questions our way — Moors was pitching SUNE as his favorite and, secondarily, TSLA and WNDW… Hodge’s colleague Jeff Siegel did tout SolarWindow (WNDW) years ago, when it was still called New Energy Technologies, but it’s not in this current ad.
At least one of the stocks is a “rerun”, though — so there’s your hint from me.
Here’s how Hodge gets us interested, after we skip through the first dozen pages of “New Texas Oil” foofaraw:
“… 2016 is The Last Year This Tiny $1 Stock Trades UNDER $10….
“My point is, 2016 is the “tipping point” for the solar market’s energy dominance.
“And that’s exactly when this company’s new technologies will hit the market… dropping the price of solar by 75%.
“Sure, tons of new solar technologies are being mentioned in the news. But few are even close to ready for market. Most have not even left the prototype stage.
“That’s not the case at all with this company’s third-generation solar cell — which is not only ready for production…
“But has proven commercially viable in assembly line tests.”
Sounds impressive, right? Then he goes into the rational-sounding math behind his projections of massive gains:
“How much money are we talking about?
“In the United States alone, the market is $33 billion.
“So let’s be conservative and say this company’s solar technology captures just half of current U.S. sales…
“That’s nearly $16.5 billion in annual revenue.
“Twenty percent of that — this company’s share of royalties — is roughly $3 billion.
“Factoring in the average price-to-sales ratio for similar companies, the share price comes out to $67.
“That’s a 13,400% gain!”
That’s hooey. I’d use stronger language, but Stock Gumshoe is a family operation.
Why? Because this time he’s hinting at a company called Natcore (NXT.V in Canada, NTCXF on the OTCQB in the US)… which, sort of like SolarWindow, has been a solar technology/materials R&D company in search of a viable product for a long time. Nick Hodge also indicated that the stock was on the verge of popping from $1 to $21 back in 2012 when he hinted that this was the “non solar stock to save the solar industry.”
This company was teased by them in a slightly different way just last Fall, too. The company has been public, and tiny, for about 6-1/2 years, and right now it’s about at the lowest price it has traded at since the IPO — at least in US terms, which is what we should pay attention to since it’s not a Canadian business even though their primary listing is in Canada (the only reason for the Canadian listing is that they were too small to list on AMEX back in 2009, and they still are, though they upgraded their US listing to the OTCQB last year and are filing with the SEC… I haven’t seen a quarterly report yet in their US filings).
"reveal" emails? If not,
just click here...
Promotional chatter about them from Nick Hodge and from other newsletters and pundits and promoters has helped to bring price spikes in the past, particularly when the company has gotten the attention of national news outlets or been singled out by the government, and announcements about R&D accomplishments and possible commercialization have also had a positive impact on the price, but it has always come back down after the attention waned.
Will that happen again this time (either the spike, or the waning)? I have no idea, but I’d urge you to be skeptical about the timing of commercialization for their technology. I don’t know whether we should consider this a “when” or an “if” issue, since I’m certainly not an expert in materials science or in the solar cell or semiconductor industry, but even if you’re optimistic and consider their commercialization to be a “when” question, that date will almost certainly be long after this year. They’ve been saying “this year” or “next year” for a long, long time.
The technology the company was founded on was liquid phase deposition, which is a cheaper and safer way to create panels (instead of gas/vapor deposition), and the two solar cell improvements they’re currently trying to sell are an “absolute black” coating that cuts reflection and reduces costs, and a laser-etching back-contact HIT technology that can cut costs by skipping a manufacturing step or two and also improves efficiency.
And the reason I was tempted to go beyond saying just “hooey” is that while these are technologies on which Natcore hopes to receive royalties (that would have to be preceded by a deal to actually commercialize them, of course, which hasn’t happened), but the royalties, even if they have the good fortune to reach that point, will not be gross sales royalties. Not even close, that would presumably be a complete non-starter for a very cost-sensitive industry. The royalties discussed in their latest president’s message are royalties on the gains that Natcore’s technology can generate. CEO/President Chuck Prozini indicated that 10-20% would be the range of royalties they expect, so that would be, say, 10% of the cost savings that their customers get from using the “absolute black” silicon coating, or 10% of the efficiency gains reached by using the back-contact HIT-type cell design.
Which could still be a big number, of course, IF commercialized on a large scale. Reaching half the U.S. solar market is not a conservative estimate in my opinion, that’s probably an insanely optimistic estimate, so that broad number from Hodge is silly too… but if Natcore could reach, say, 3% of the market, and they end up cutting costs for those customers by 3% and therefore generating a 10% royalty on that 3% savings that would still be a big number for a little company like this. Margins are tight in solar, but if we assumed it was a higher-margin manufacturer like First Solar (FSLR), where cost of goods is about 60% of sales, then that would mean that cutting costs by 3% would mean that margins improve by a little less than two basis points (gross margin goes from about 40% to 42%, roughly speaking).
That’s essentially saying that the benefit that First Solar garners is roughly a 2% cost savings, so if Natcore gets a 10% royalty on that savings you’re looking at effectively something like a 0.2% sales royalty to Natcore. With First Solar having about $3.6 billion in sales over the last year, that would mean the royalty to Natcore would be $7 million (.02% of $3.6 billion). That would be a lot for Natcore, to be sure, since they’ve never posted any meaningful revenue, but even that pretty huge level of commercial sales would really just make this a reasonably valued company right now if you didn’t presume great growth or scalability — they lose about $5 million a year, so if such a deal came without increased costs it might mean they earn $2 million a year in profit on the royalty… which is enough to move the needle for a $20 million company, but maybe not an earthshaking windfall.
This is all just an example and a mental exercise, I remind you, as far as I know those companies have no such relationship and Natcore has never announced an agreement that’s gone as far as actually stating a royalty level — and I think, personally, that the idea of Natcore getting their technology adopted by a major manufacturer and having it applied to all of that manufacturer’s sales is a large leap and that relationship, even if it might someday be possible (I have no idea on the odds, to be clear), would probably take a long time to mature. I’d consider those numbers to be wildly optimistic, but that might just be because I’m a little extra-skeptical after seeing Natcore teased for so many years.
Is that kind of potential big enough to take the chance that they won’t ever commercialize one of their core technologies? Am I being too cautious and skeptical? Well, that’s your call — all I know is that this is a small and promotional company that has to raise a few million dollars every year to keep the lights on, and the commercialization process is apparently long and difficult, particularly because all the big manufacturers (SunPower, Panasonic, et al) are also developing their own new technologies all the time. And the chatter about their designs and technology being more efficient and critical to the next phase of development is quite similar to the chatter that was floating around about this same company back in 2009… I suspect that it’s a lot easier to sell the story to investors than it is to sell Natcore’s technology to solar cell manufacturers.
The other stock that Hodge touts is made to sound similarly exciting, here’s the tease:
“Solar Boom Play #2: Bag 100-Fold Gains on Solar Picks & Shovels
“The next way to play the solar boom is also not really a solar company. It’s never touched a solar cell.
“Instead it produces software that brings standardized quality to solar manufacturing.
“What I consider a ‘picks and shovels’ play for the solar boom.”
“Picks and shovels” is a nice idea, of course — that’s an allusion to the fact that the folks who made money in the California gold rush were the entrepreneurs who sold picks and shovels (and Levis) to the miners, not the prospectors who pursued the dramatically riskier “search for gold” business model. Don’t know if it really applies here, but any company that sells tools or business to business services in any industry has probably been pitched as a “picks and shovels” play.
This one’s really about process controls and efficiency, it appears. More from Hodge:
“The opportunity lies in the old, outdated, and inefficient production process for solar cells.
“The current lines produce a high rate of defective solar cells — as high as 25% in fact…
“A serious loss of time and money for solar makers….
“Solar companies are making cells at a 20% margin loss. And trying to make it up on volume.
“As global demand climbs to unprecedented levels every single quarter, this will cut even deeper into profit margins.
“And that’s why the industry is in desperate need of automated and standardized production….
“Tests show it can yield 99% quality control — an absolutely incredible boost.
“This will bring solar up to the standards of other industries — where the defective rate is 1% or less.
“It can singlehandedly flip a solar maker’s 20% loss to a 20% profit gain.
“So you can imagine why solar makers are lining up to get their hands on this tech.”
OK, so some kind of hardware/software for cutting down on defects in solar cell production… any more details about the company?
“This tiny company’s market cap is only $5 million…
“But it has $10.5 million worth of orders already locked.
“These are orders already set, with the shipments going out.
“That’s double its market cap! But the stock hasn’t even moved. The markets haven’t caught on yet.
“This is a huge under-the-radar opportunity… one that could instantly double your money — and that’s just for starters.
“In total, there are 625 solar production lines worldwide and growing. So this software (at $500,000 a pop) has a market opportunity of $312 million.
“When you add the service costs, it totals up to roughly $500 million.
“That’s 100 times its current market cap — and that’s just on the existing lines.
“All told, early investors could see 10,000% profits in the next few years as the orders roll in.”
So who is it? Well, I suspect this is a re-tease of a company called Aurora Solar Technology (ACU.V in Canada, AACTF OTC in the US), which used to go by the name Aurora Control and was teased by Hodge back in the Fall of 2014. It’s freakishly minuscule, even smaller than it was when he teased it in 2014 (it was a $7 million company then, now it’s about US$4 million — or C$5+ million). The company has made a bit of progress since then, they’ve sold a few of their measurement systems that fit into solar cell furnaces and measure to help identify faults and improve output — now the software that this system uses is called Veritas, and the actual measurement device that gets built into the furnace line is the Decima 3T.
I can’t tell you for sure whether they’ve got $10.5 million in orders “already locked” — they have had at least a half dozen systems ordered over the last year or so, from what I can tell, and each one should represent something like $400,000 in revenue according to the company’s presentation. They seem to see their opportunity as being an “add on” to new next-generation furnaces that are installed, and they have a partner agreement with SEMCO, which is one of the furnace makers. Their investor presentation from last May indicates that they think their system will cost $400,000 per furnace, and reduce costs by over a million dollars per year — which means their customers would get a pretty quick return on investment.
But like I said, it’s absurdly teeny. Investors who are not experts on the industry or technology, or who aren’t company insiders with great insight into operations, are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to nanocap companies with valuations this tiny — there are dozens of companies who specialize in semincoductor testing equipment, which is similar to solar equipment, and there are lots of large solar equipment companies who presumably would have bought this firm by now if it was in possession of uniquely valuable yield-increasing technology (Applied Materials, for example, could user their profit from one week’s work to buy Aurora Control). There may even be companies who sell stuff that’s almost identical to Aurora’s, I have no idea — and most people wouldn’t, because other small companies who are making testing and process control equipment are likely to be hidden inside much larger companies, or just little private operations that investors will never hear about.
That doesn’t mean that tiny companies can’t be valuable, or can’t grow, or even that they can’t fly under the radar and explode into profitability before anyone notices them… but it doesn’t happen very often, and that kind of lottery ticket mentality doesn’t usually serve investors very well. When I’m trying to apply some rationality to my thinking (which doesn’t always work), I might ask myself: If this company’s technology is so great, why are they tiny and independent? If Applied Materials and all the other suppliers haven’t shown any interest in buying this company out, well, do I really know more than they do? That may not be reasonable, but it can at least help to counter whatever lustful jingles these kinds of ads generate in your veins and give you a chance to slow down and think it over.
The company does have some revenue that’s just starting to emerge with their first few sales — and they sell what should be a pretty high-margin product and software package, so there is some possibility that they could become a going concern. If they could sell 10-20 units a year and generate between $4-8 million in revenue (their last four quarters had only $100,000 or so in revenue, so this is assuming a lot), then, assuming gross margins stay pretty high, they could absorb their $2 million+ of overhead and selling costs and begin to post a profit. I’m assuming that’s not how it will go, since they’ll probably have to keep spending more on selling to build up more partnerships, and more on R&D to keep improving their products to keep up with competition (I assume there’s a lot of competition, but don’t know the industry at all), then the business model and the potential gross margins make it at least theoretically interesting.
So whaddya think — have any opinion on these two super-teensy solar(ish) companies? Let us know with a comment below.
Good analysis, I think I will pass for now. You have the straight scoop…. Thanks.
I think Nick Hodge is a scam artist.
The previous pitch was “Obama’s secret pipe line”, which made solar out as a big joke that will NEVER account for much. How can this guy still look at himselfin a mirror without puking?
Perhaps it helps if the mirror is gold-plated and you’re sitting on a pile of $100 bills…
EXACTLY what I was thinking. According to that scammer, one moment “nuclear” generated electricity is going to dominate the world, then it’s “solar” Who knows what they’re going to pitch in next month!!
Probably, but if you watch the video long enough you’ll notice Jeff Siegal is among the coauthors of the report. I respect Jeff, though I disagree vehemently with his libertarian politics. In fact I bought Hannon-Armstrong, HASI, a clean tech REIT, on his recommendation
and have enjoyed satisfactory returns from it.
Well here ya go James: http://email.angelnexus.com/hostedemail/email.htm?CID=33131970184&ch=98FB9231D5044990CD087710BFD5330D&h=63a500c6a70e96a923187a069a2afee8&ei=sT0mwvCNo 🙂 Best2You-Ben
How right you are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for saving me tons of time and trouble. I can’t stand those long repetitive boring offers that I get everyday. I don’t even bother to wade through it all like you have done here. Thanks Again!!!!
I don’t get it. How many times will Travis need to prove to all of you that whenever someone hypes some stock as “the next big thing” you should just ignore them? Admittedly sometimes such shysters will present some thought provoking market statistics or a slant on how to interpret them that is new to you. But other than that, what they spew is just a bunch of BS. How can you even remotely begin to take them seriously?
You get it, but it’s mainly people with no experience at all with stock investing who are the targets of these promotions (like I was when I first found this site). If Travis had a nickel for every dollar he’s saved investing neophytes, he’d probably own his own island in the Bahamas by now.
Hey Max, I don’t think ignoring them is the right approach either. Although they are over hyped, some do have value. When Travis’s excellent reviews are somewhat neutral on a company it peaks my interest, I dig around a bit and form my own opinion. The 3 I’ve picked up over the last few months are all up 20 to 24%, 1 from this week up 4. There is nothing forcing me to hold at this point. If the stocks crash 30% and I’m still holding, that’s on me, not the fault of any newsletter or review. The combination of over priced, over hyped newsletters and Stock Gumshoe = good investment opportunities. I do do agree that relying solely on those newsletters would be dangerous…
We DON’T take them seriously. We’re just coming here for some affirmation and to be sure that we’re not missing one of the 1-in-50 stocks that are actually worth a careful look, which is what Travis so ably provides.
If oil and gas drop to much cheaper levels, will any thing with solar have value? I am sure the clean energy, EPA mandates, will keep wind and solar going, but only so long if other energy sources are cheap. Thanks for looking into this Travis.
Cheap oil is a huge negative for many countries. There should be no doubt as to where the price of oil is going, only when.
You must keep in mind that new projections indicate that 90% of fossil fuels must remain in the ground, and that current share prices are now based on something that no longer has much future value. Those facts are catching up with investors and the market in general. Of course, don’t expect to hear that from XOM.
As to Natcore? Who knows, but at least they’re on the growth side in the energy sector.
Travis, we love you too. We appreciate the work you do in sifting through pages and pages of these crappy ads and then providing an analysis of the stocks uncovered. The analytical part is very informative and for most of us it is educational. Also, I find your style of writing very entertaining. Thank you so much for all this work.
Travis, I’d like to hear your comments on Zenect Wealth’s script on the new Swiss “electronic money system without banks.” Offered first to the wealthy for a $36,000 buy-in, but supposedly created for the masses of small investors. I listened, then read it again, but still can’t figure out how the smaller investors get value from the system–if it really exists. L
Not familiar with that one.
I can’t believe how many enjoy this site and not pay the inexpensive yearly dues. Its a win win when you can help pay for the hard work that’s put into researching. I have been a member for years but don’t post much. I enjoy Travis and the comments.
Lsteck, you can’t really know how many people are enjoying the sight without being paying members, as commenting without being logged in doesn’t show you to be a paying member, even though you may be.
Hodge is now excited about this electrical wireless Co that is using one of Tesla’s patent and is ready to blow the lights out any moment, Any ideas
Contact – at the top of the home page at stockgumshoe.com
We cannot give personal financial advice (or any other kind of personalized advice) but will try to respond to questions that we can answer as quickly as possible. Content of questions may be used in future articles or Q&A, but names or other personal information will not be used.
Feel free to use this form to submit links to ads you’d like us to cover (you can also forward them to ILoveStockSpam@gmail.com), requests for membership cancellations, customer service inquiries or questions about our site or service, or anything else. Thanks for getting in touch! (you can drag the bottom right corner of the text entry box to make it bigger if needed)
Contact Form
Email*
Subject*
Message*
Submit
If you do not receive a confirmation (via email) that your message was sent, it may not have been delivered — please contact us at payments@stockgumshoe.com if that’s the case.
Please note that we are a small company and do not have a team of support staff working around the clock every day, so specific requests for login problems or payment processing questions may sometimes take several hours or a day to address. Thank you for your patience!
Correspondence of any kind, including forwarded mail teaser ads and membership payments by check can also be sent by regular mail to:
Stock Gumshoe
P.O. Box 61
Leeds, MA 01053
Fax: (866) 516-7341 (toll free)
Phone: (617) 249-4867 (Usually goes to voicemail. We can usually respond quicker to email than to voice mails, you can reach us at payments @ stockgumshoe . com for customer service inquiries)
If you wish to forward an email teaser ad for our consideration (please do, that’s how we get a lot of our material), you can also send that directly to ILoveStockSpam @ gmail . com — thanks! Best2You-Ben
Thanks for sitting through the spiel, Travis, and giving us the skinny on
the solar stocks Hodge is touting.
I recommend Civic Solar to buy solar panels from and Canadian Solar as
manufacturer. Their 320 watt solar panels are 92 cents/watt each with a 25
year warranty and are made America (Canada).
As for this Tesla derived wireless energy deal…..it works, but not the way
they are trying to bring it to market because they still don’t understand
what Tesla was doing with his broadcast power system. Edison, J.P. Morgan,
and Westinghouse conspired to put Tesla out of the free broadcast power
business….and they succeeded.
I don’t see anything on the horizon that might change fossil fuels as the
way mankind powers itself in the next 100 years….despite all the hoopla.
WestTexasLawrence
100 years? Really? 100 years ago, flight was just taking off (so to speak) not many cars yet on the road, computers? years away. Tesla just received 1000 each from 200,000 people reserving a car that won’t be built for 2 years. (no fossil fuel). India with its pollution wants to get rid of ALL fossil fuel vehicles by 2030… 14 years. That might be a bit ambitious. US CAFE standards to be 54 mpg in 2025… I would love one more boom cycle in oil, so I could sell my last losing position at even (fat chance). I did pick up some more Natcore (been holding some since it went public) and doubled down this year. I’m not hoping for the huge share price bounce, but if they started paying some modest dividends based off their gradually building royalties, it could do well over time. Perhaps they could help me pay for a model 3 when it comes out 😀
Probably this one again: http://www.stockgumshoe.com/reviews/alternative-energy-speculator/wireless-electricity-and-the-midas-supergroup/
Tesla had hundreds of patents. Tesla was the root of Westinghouse, and did more for electricity than anyone before or sense. Wireless power is possible, but only for very short distances. Gotthave really big air coils to make it work at all. Pipedream by Hodge, and all others….
45-pages of Nick Hodge’s crap??? Jeeze Travis…. Your the man buddy!! That is some serious suffering to get the answer… I follow your column daily. Your view on things keeps me sane. Thanks!!
I see where the Obama administration wants to slap a $10/barrel tax on domestically
produced oil to penalize our domestic producers. I’d RATHER see them slap a $10/barrel
IMPORT tax on all oil imported into the USA from anywhere else. That would give domestic
producers an edge and bolster their businesses versus foreign producers…and keep more
Americans employed by domestic oil companies in both production and exploration.
We should take care of Americans first, I say.
WestTexasLawrence
I’m sure many people disagree with me, but I think we need to transition to much higher gas or oil taxes to spur conservation and alternatives — our supply-side energy policy is foolish, I think, we need to put the societal and environmental cost of each fuel onto the consumers themselves, which would mean that oil and gas and coal have very high taxes and natural gas slightly lower taxes to account for the pollution they cause, and then let the market try to find ways to conserve or identify new alternatives with lower social or environmental costs. If the only real solution that will cause an impact on the world is “using less” of fossil fuels, then they need to be more expensive to force alternatives and conservation. That’s overly simplistic, to be sure, but I think it’s far more efficient than requiring companies to sell high-efficiency cars (that no one wants to buy) or subsidizing rooftop solar (even if solar’s not the best choice for a particular location).
Travis I agree that higher taxes on hydrocarbon fuels would lead to lower use in the most efficient manner. Subsidizing alternative fuels is like trying to shovel with a rope handle,,you accomplish very little for the expenditure. However be prepared for startlingly higher prices for food and fuel if higher taxes are imposed. In fact the price of all goods would rise dramatically for manufacture and delivery are both very high energy users. Immediate results would be a rapid run up in inflation from higher cost and misery for lower income people. We can discuss the morality of seizing a portion of a persons life energy via taxation to force someones idea of proper behavior another time, but taxes are always a handicap and a burden on producers and consumers alike and often have unforeseen consequences. Your analysis is spot on however, IMHO frank
Here in Australia petrol is taxed at about AU$ 2.66/gallon (US$1.86/gallon), the buses and trains are underutilized and most everyone drives as much as they like. I’m not sure using taxation to effect behavior is a good idea, or one that accomplishes anything other than giving the government more of our money to waste! BTW…we recently scrapped the carbon tax here but solar is heavily subsidized.
That’s not nearly enough to effect real change, in my opinion.
Here in the Netherlands, gasoline prices run @ $6.- (USD), and at above $100.-/barrel oilprices even at $8.5 with heavy utilized public transportation and a lot of bicycles. The effect of heavily taxed gas is that people buy smaller cars and lots of Tesla’s and hybrids.
Thanks for the good work, mr Johnson.
There is a large part of the population that higher fuel prices would mean nothing less than less disposable income. Many people are employed in industries where public transportation is not an option. Construction and sales as examples. For people living in the suburbs it may mean selling their detached homes to move into an equivalently valued condo in the city, hopefully close to their single destination place of employment.
The longer gas stays low the better the odds of increased tax’s on fuel, tax’s that will never go away as fuel price’s rise. I am in the construction industry and my personal fuel cost was $900/month when gas was 1.30/litre in Toronto.
I am hoping for a significant leap in battery storage tech. That would lead to a huge push by the entire auto industry in bringing affordable electric vehicles across the range. It would also solve the biggest problem with solar energy. Both of these scenario’s would create a financial incentive for consumers to go green, the quickest way for the world to get there. Higher fuel price’s would just mean more pain until we get there. In keeping with the investment theme of this site, that battery company would quickly become the next Apple. This is what Tesla is trying to do, the planet should hope hope they succeed.
forget battery as being viable. Ok, When electricity is generated heat is produced by the generator. Half of all electricity is ‘wasted’ by the generator. Then it is put into the battery. when the battery is used, half is used up in heat. (in case you wonder, Kirchoff law,,,, check it out). Thus, to use electricity, your efficiency is 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4 actually being produced to the motor doing the work. Gas and diesel on the other hand now are pretty close to 50% efficient. Electricity loses unless it is generated by water.
Telsa is launching its’ residential batteries here in Australia due to the large installed, and heavily subsidized, solar industry. If this is an ‘investment’ site, then it should be pointed out that electricity prices would need to increase significantly or the battery cost reduced significantly for this technology to produce an ROI. People will buy and install Telsa batteries not because it makes economic sense but because they have a philosophical position on energy.
Power generation from e.g. coal to megawatts on the grid is better now than the 35-40% efficiency I was quoted some 60 years ago. Losses in a rotating a.c. generator are due to the stator current, air friction and the load current in the rotor winding, to total probably around 3% at full load.
Rechargeable batteries are about 60% efficient, on the basis of watts in to watts out. There cannot be a 50% loss on charging unless the battery’s internal resistance equals the source resistance, and similarly for discharging into the load resistance .
One drawback to using batteries is their lifetime, Capacity falls with every recharge and about 1000 recharging cycles is the present limit. Perhaps a 5-year life could be achieved with solar cells. Another drawback is the present scarcity of the rare-earth metals needed for higher-efficiency batteries, which pushes up their cost. Despite that, batteries are a very efficient way of storing surplus electrical energy for long periods.
TiO2/BiVO4 Nanowire Heterostructure Photoanodes Based on Type II Band Alignment: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acscentsci.5b00402 Best2All-Ben
You guys may not understand thermodynamics and the limits on Carnot efficiency (waste heat must be rejected from the steam plant during the Carnot cycle). Even with regenerative feedwater heating and moisture separator/reheating, thermodynamic limits on a typical modern steam plant (Rankine Cycle) efficiency are less than 50%. Efficiency is proportional to the temperature difference between the heat source and the heat sink as the low pressure steam exiting the turbine must be condensed back into water so it can be pumped back through the cycle. Every power source has efficiency losses, i.e., photoelectric, internal combustion, or steam plant. The thought of the turbine/generator wasting half of the energy is not true, the major loss is the inherent loss due to heat rejection. The laws of thermodynamics cannot be broken.
Travis, I enjoy your work and appreciate your insight, but on the issue of taxing oil consumption, I must disagree. Conservation of fossil fuels is contrary to logic if you believe alternatives are somehow superior, environmentally or otherwise. The fallacies of peak oil theory don’t bely the fact that oil resources are finite. Eventually, depletion will cause the price to rise to where alternatives will become price competitive naturally. The greatest problem in our society is that government always thinks it has to decide for the people who the winners and losers will be before the race has been run. We don’t need any more taxes or subsidies on ANYTHING. We need to shrink government, reduce regulation, and let the markets work. I should think a guy who makes his living helping people decipher the markets would understand that. Keep up the good work.
I’m sure lots of people disagree, thanks for your note. Here’s what I think: I don’t believe markets can work without a strong nudge when it comes to pollution and the environment and protecting the common good — the payoff is too universal and too long-term, this is just another iteration of the “Tragedy of the Commons”, everyone’s individual self interest is to deplete an asset as fast as possible to get the most out of it they can. China will set new records for lung cancer for decades before they run out of coal unless external forces dictate a different path — that’s just one extreme example, but I am not a libertarian when it comes to the environment. I do think the markets can work much better at reducing pollution and the harmful effects of fossil fuels than regulations do, but there needs to be a non-organic force (like price) applied. Setting and trying to enforce detailed and negotiated regulations puts the engine of human innovation to work evading those regulations, raising prices through a tax on consumption is far simpler and cleaner and puts the innovation to work at cutting consumption and finding alternatives.
China is a dangerous blend of Communism and the burning urge to industrialize/modernize. America was able to get from point A to where we are now with a government that ultimately had the citizenry’s health and safety in mind, i.e., Labor Unions, OSHA, Mine Safety Administration, etc. A free, competitive market lets the best and most cost-effective technologies ultimately win out, with the government keeping a watchful regulatory eye on the workers, public, and the environment. Unfortunately, Communism looks out for the well-being of the government, and allows the companies to poison the worker and the environment in the interest of progress. I don’t know what outside force can be applied to China. Perhaps it is fortunate that air pollution and water pollution distributes itself on its own and ultimately will poison the communist leaders as well. They are gearing up with solar and nuclear as fast as they can, but the energy demands are so great now that they still feel the need to burn anything for electrical production and discard manufacturing waste into the air and water. This will ultimately be a self-limiting effect, and I fear the urge to limit pollution will only happen from the inside.
Travis,
Increasing taxes on petroleum may force finding other
alternatives but primarily cheaper alternatives and not
necessarily more environmentally friendly ones. One of
the biggest problems with the whole discussion about
environmental impact between internal combustion engine
cars and electric cars is you are not able to compare apples to apples.
Sure the electric car produces less pollution while the two are being
driven but what is the environmental impact of producing the two cars.
Pollution is created while mining the lithium, nickel, copper, etc used in
Electric cars. What is the environmental impact when the cars are retired?
Petroleum is not going away, it is used in too many products (probably
in just about anything you look at in most peoples homes). About 27
Gal of Gasoline is produced from 50 Gal of crude. The number of products
made from oil is mind boggling which pretty much guarantees the
continued use of oil. If you no longer used internal combustion
engine cars how do you get rid of the Gasoline? That Gasoline will be
used to produce electricity so where is the net gain. This is definitely a complex
issue but using both market forces and regulation is, I believe, the best option. Using only market forces creates the types of pollution that China has now and that the United States used to have. Too much regulation increases cost and often creates other problems which can be as bad as the problem you are trying to solve.
your comment sounds like a racist one and you should know better…………………….
I think you’re conflating protectionism with racism. But regardless, as I understand it the proposed tax (which will clearly never pass, but might lead to useful discussion in an election year) is on oil companies, not specifically on US-produced oil.
You’re missing the point that US presidents are in the business of protecting international interests and lobbies over US domestic ones. From Nixon to W., there were no exceptions, especially in energy. Won’t even talk about going to war for resources that we hand over to our global competitors for pennies on the dollar…
I got excited about NatCore after reading about them in the Mauldin/Cox TransTech newsletter (which I stopped reading after noticing its impact on my net worth – I hate the way these newsletter writers describe it as a ‘risk free trial subscription’ as if they are going to reimburse you after their recommended stock tanks – not!). Anyhooo, the basic premise at NatCore seemed sound (and Brien Lundin seemed to be a good name, like Mauldin), but I was very disappointed to see NatCore printing shares willy nilly and handing out warrants to insiders, which I think of in much the same terms as money printing in general, ie a subtle form of theft from everyone else), so I don’t see my self buying any more NXT and just look forward to being able to exit without a large loss at some point.
PS There are a few YouTube presentations for those interested to see them eg https://youtu.be/6TvjfK8ZmjY
Angel Investments is touting a metal oil..Stating that Elon Musk(Tesla) and BMW/Toyota are investing heavily..This will replace oil as we know it for the mfg of new vehicles..
WHAT IS THE NEW METAL OIL?
electricity storage…batteries
Hi Travis! I may have missed your analysis of Dr. Kent Moore’s
Strong recommendation to invest long term on SUNE. Dr. Kent
Seems to have an insider’s background in the energy sector!
He says that SUNE’s technology breakthrough brought the electricity cost from current $76/kwhr. Down to $0.05/kwhr?
Your thoughts on this? And whether
Investing in SUNE for the long (4-6 years +) is a good thing?
Thank you
How many next biggest things can be due for release in the market in any given week? That many? Then why by now haven’t we all retired as multi-millionaires? Seems like there are plenty of next biggest things every week! What is wrong with each, and every one of us?
……and now, for my new book!……..’The Next Biggest Thing!’ Send me $1800 for the 1st page. For only $800 more you get the 2nd, and last page that reveals all or, $2400 for all of it. You must buy the 1st page now to get the 2nd which is currently in contemplation. If this is successful, you will never hear from me again. I’ll be off shore, somewhere.
Mixed in with they hyper opportunity palaver, comes the occasional good advice. I like Bonner, Porter And Rickards. I cannot afford to do much with their suggestions, but they have been pretty sound!
TSLA-8K Current Report: http://ir.teslamotors.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-16-457674&CIK=1318605 Best2All-Ben
Your so-called analysis of Natcore leaves a lot to be desired, to be sure. First, the CEO’s surname is Provini, not Prozini. And you failed to mention an extremely important fact regarding the laser back-contact HIT cell, which is that Natcore has developed the cell without the use of any silver. The company has replaced silver with aluminum in their solar cells and that is a huge game changer in the solar industry. How could you have failed to miss that point? So much for your analysis.
So explain laser back-contact HIT cell, and what it means to the ignorant such as myself.
How does it change the game? How much silver is not used and how much aluminum is used? What is the total cost difference in the end product?
As for misspelling a name. REALLY?
Are you hung over this morning? Is that a picture of Vladimir Putin?
@Opposablethumb,
Following is an excerpt from an article I published on Natcore last year. You can find the entire article at: http://seekingalpha.com/article/3462366-natcore-solar-eliminates-need-silver-solar-cell-manufacturing
“In order to provide you with an idea of why this achievement is so important in terms of the investment thesis alone, consider the following:
Silver represents approximately 48 percent of the metallization costs in developing a solar cell.
Currently silver is about $15.30/ounce while aluminum is $0.05/ounce.
To help potential investors appreciate what that translates to in real numbers, the following will help.
A 1 GW solar power generation plant requires about 1.5 million ounces of silver, which translates to about $23 million. With the elimination of silver from the process and replacing it with aluminum, the savings for a 1GW solar power generation plant will be approximately $22.8 million. Clearly, that’s a significant savings in both capital and operating expenses.
Natcore has not lost any efficiency in moving from silver to aluminum. Eliminating silver is part of the evolution of the technology that Natcore has been working on with the high-efficiency heterojunction solar cells.
The industry is going to need to move away from traditional cells to the heterojunction cells, where the efficiency is in the 25 percent-plus range. The issue has been that HIT cells are approximately 50 percent more expensive to manufacture than traditional cells.
Natcore’s laser and back contact technology has already reduced that 50 percent higher production cost down to numbers that are quite competitive with traditional solar cells.”
I notice the article is from August 2015. Patenting was imminent (within a couple of weeks).
But the website does not list anything since that date regarding patents.
I see tranches of small financing amounts and the use of the word potentially quite often when referring to the elimination of silver. As with many ideas the devil is in the detail. Perhaps the useful life of the panel is much less than those that use silver. I do not know, I just get the feeling that something is being left out of the equation. Too many people and companies play the part of a magician, get you looking at one thing only as a distraction. The key is, what is the whole picture? What is the potential downside/trade off using aluminum?
Those are indeed impressive technical achievements, it appears — my concern with Natcore and the many similar small R&D firms in other technology areas has always been with the fact that dozens (at least) of other researchers are working on those things as well (there’s been a big push to reduce silver use in solar for at least five years, for example). Natcore hasn’t yet been able to make a meaningful dent with their several touted design achievements in the past few years. That doesn’t mean they won’t, I certainly have no idea, but my suspicion with these little “pure play” companies is usually that the promotional chatter from the company sometimes makes us overlook the hundreds of other researchers that are developing solutions for similar problems inside large companies without being promotional… and I have nowhere near the technical expertise or industry knowledge to guess at whose ideas will end up working best. Little R&D firms like Natcore are incentivized to claim great advancements and share their news, larger firms are incentivized to keep their progress closer to the vest, I often think that little R&D labs don’t do anyone any favors by being public — they’d be much better off trying to get their work done and their designs commercialized without having to get investors excited every six months so they can hit them up for more funding.
That’s not a Natcore-specific criticism, it’s just my way of explaining some of the cynicism I tend to have about this kind of company.
Apologies for the name typo. And yes, I’m sure I didn’t do a thorough analysis of Natcore — though I suspect that, as with all the other advancements they’ve touted in at Natcore in the past few years, it will take a long time and a lot of money to turn the “use less silver idea” into a commercial product.
Mike you were right on, just bought in about a month about with a basis of .06. You had the golden egg over a year ago but no hatch. hopefully a run now, with tariffs etc., GLTAL
No mention that Natcore has developed a process to create solar cells without using silver:
http://www.printedelectronicsworld.com/articles/8333/solar-cell-that-eliminates-use-of-silver
China is on target to use 100 billion ounces of silver for solar cell manufacture in the next 5 years. If Natcore’s technology can actually reduce manufacturing costs as promised, there is a big market out there.
Thanks. Looks lie a 10.4 % cost savings. Think I will just short silver.
like
I’m very confused. I have bought a LOT of silver, and I bought some Natcore… I bought silver, partly on the vast shortage each year. Supposedly we had something like 8 billion ounces above ground in 1980, now supposedly about a billion. This year with all the solar increases (plus a surge in physical demand) the world was supposed to be short 55 million ounces (then there is mine closings). So if Natcore does this horrible thing of getting rid of silver in solar manufacturing, I’m going to have a lot of shiny cup holders. LOL if Natcore does take off, I get to buy more silver at $5 an ounce then I guess.
I personally don’t worry about Natcore killing demand for silver (I have both, though I have used the recent upsurge in Natcore to unload a large chunk as I don’t trust them not to dilute my shares in future – once bitten, twice shy).
I think there will always be new uses discovered for the PMs (gold/silver) and PGMs (platinum/palladium) – eg silver survived the death of the photographic emulsion when digital cameras arrived.
I’d also note we seem to be entering the early stages of a new precious metals bull market, in which your silver is likely to double or more. I recall Harry Browne mentioning how he thought his claim that gold would double from the early 70s was a bit optimistic (instead it went up about 20x). So even the gold/silver wingnuts might be surprised at how this unfolds. My impression from listening to analysts is, expect a pullback in the near term, followed by outsized gains in PMs in the coming few years.
Let us know how that works out for you 🙂
If the entire human race was rational, ethical, and forward-looking, no one would be willing to generate pollution wherever cleaner alternatives are available. Solar would never need to be subsidised in order to provide enough financial incentive to spur innovation. I’m a conservative-leaning independent but on this issue get pretty annoyed with Republicans who hypocritically slam solar subsidies while they chronically support fossil fuel subsidies. When it comes to how to invest in clean energy though, it can be tricky – I threw up my hands long ago and just went with Elon Musk. Because I trust both his sincerity of purpose and his abilities, I trust his companies. Despite the entrenched opposition against him, he’s likely to win in the long term and so will his stockholders.
Hi,
Any one could guess what is the Ticker Symbol of the new Texas Oil or Solar Energy that will will provide power to 1.8b population in India, China & USA etc?