With apologies to The Bard,
Bamboo or no bamboo? That is the question. Whether tis logical to plant bamboo across America? For tis an evasive species with no natural predators, or to plant hemp, other grasses, and hardwoods and to do so as a means to natural sustainable carbon sequestration.
To place plants, to literally green the bio-humano-sphere, to create new habitat and pull carbon dioxide out of the air. And how much of the dioxide of carbon can we pull per year?
Continue reading
Here’s a scenario: You are Project Manager on a new and important project. You have a 6-person team. You’re writing the planning documents, and J Doe, one of the key members of the team, leaves. Abruptly. Why J. quit doesn’t really matter. Maybe he or she inherited some money and decided to split for Tahiti. Maybe J simply decided to follow other dreams – which don’t involve your project. He or she gave two week’s notice and put in a good 6-hour day for Monday thru Thursday, of the first week…. and checked out.
But you, an “Alpha Project Manager,” are undaunted. You take a deep breath, call, email, or see the sponsor (physically or virtually) and say, “J Doe quit, effective a week from Friday. This role is critical. We – that is I – need to find a replacement.”
Continue reading
If Attila the Hun had a resume it would read, Emperor, King, Chief, and Prince. The resume would probably not describe how after his father’s death, in 418, Attila was sent by his uncle to be a servant in the Roman Court of Emperor Flavius Honorius. That, however, is the back story, as told by Wess Roberts In Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun. (At Strand Books, here) Roberts describes Attila as a visionary, an ambitious, and charismatic leader and a strategic thinker who united the Hunnish tribes into a nation then transformed that nation into an empire. He brought Astrogoths, Alans, and others together with the Huns to try to realize his vision: to conquer Rome. And he came close.
Continue reading
The Soviet Union did not collapse due to actions President Reagan or the actions of any President of the United States In fact, President Roosevelt, via the Lend Lease Act during WW II, helped the Soviet Union and Great Britain withstand the onslaught of Nazi Germany. It helped win the war. (History.com, OurDocuments.gov, FDRLibrary.org.)
The Soviet Union, according to Mikhail Gorbachev, collapsed after and as a direct result of the meltdown at Chernobyl. Andropov, Gorbachev, and other members of the Central Committee realized that not only could they not hide the truth, but that the Soviet system was failing and doomed to failure. This is discussed in detail at Slate and at Faultlines.
Continue reading
Napoleon in Russia
On June 24, 1812 Napoleon led his Grand Army, 500,000 strong, across the Neman River into Russia. His goal was to persuade Tzar Alexander I not to trade with Great Britain. The Russian Army retreated before Napoleon’s, leaving a trail of burning farm fields. Napoleon made it to Moscow by mid-September, where he “captured” a deserted and burning city. Napoleon and his army camped out in the smoldering ruins for a month waiting the Tzar to sue for peace. But Alexander never did. Napoleon left Moscow on October 19, 1812, following the Russian army, with the Russian winter closing in. Napoleon’s army encountered the Russian army in the Battle of Maloyaroslavets. The battle was militarily inconclusive, but Napoleon’s army, starving and freezing, began its retreat back to Paris. In its retreat Napoleon’s army withstood attacks by the Russian army, Cossacks, and “peasants.”
Continue reading
Image of Block Island Wind, off of Rhode Island
As noted in the Asbury Park Press, here, Orsted (DKK, DNNGY). with support from PSEG, will build Ocean Wind, a 1.11 GW farm about 15 miles east of Atlantic City. “Ocean Wind” should come online in 2024. NJ’s Board of Public Utilities, BPU approved the $1.6 Billion, $1.44 per watt plan. (Press Release. Financial Information.)
That’s about twice the nameplate capacity of the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant, built in the late 1960’s and turned off in 2018, at 12.8% of the cost of new nuclear.
Back in 2008, NASA published this on Global Ocean Wind Energy Potential.
Ocean Wind will power roughly 500,000 homes beginning in 2024. NJ Gov. Phil Murphy set the state’s Energy Master Plan to build 3.5 GW offshore wind to power 1.5 million homes by 2030.
Meanwhile, in Georgia, the newest nuclear power plants, the 2.234 GW Vogtle 3 and 4, the first new nuclear reactors built in the United States in 30 years, are now 6 years late and estimated to cost $28 billion. (Taxpayer.net). That is a cost overrun of $14 billion, 100% over the initial cost of $14 billion. (Atlanta Journal Constitution, Power).
New nuclear is 8.7 times the cost of new wind power capacity. And nuclear needs fuel, waste management, and the safety and security concerns with nuclear power can not be understated.
—
A co-founder of Popular Logistics, I hold an MBA in “Managing for Sustainability” from Marlboro College and a Bachelor’s of Science in Biology from the City University of New York College of Staten Island. I also hold a PMI’s PMP and CompTIA’sNetwork+ certifications. Available as a speaker and consultant, I can be reached at “Popular Logistics . com” as “L Furman.”
Vogtle 3 and 4, the first new nuclear reactors built in the United States in 30 years, are now 6 years late and estimated to cost $28 billion. (Taxpayer.net). That is a cost overrun of $14 billion, 100% over the initial cost of $14 billion. (Atlanta Journal Constitution, Power).
| Rough Comparison of New Electricity Capacity Costs | ||
| Energy | Price per watt | Capacity for $12.5 B (GW) |
| Nuclear | $12.50 | 1.00 |
| Solar | $2.00 | 6.25 |
| Wind | $1.44 | 8.70 |
| Table 1 | ||
Miami during Hurricane Irma in 2017. Image by Kevin Hagan for the NY Times
“Climate Change,” according to Ban Ki Moon and Francis Suarez, writing in the New York Times, here, “is not a distant threat for Miami; it’s a daily presence in people’s lives. The city has been fighting to stay above water for decades. It knows that its future as a vibrant international hub for business, tourism, arts and culture depends on making the city more resilient to the impact of global warming.”
Eileen Mignoni, In “Flooding is the new normal in Miami In Miami,” here, in Yale Climate Connections, wrote, “sea-level rise is not a problem for future generations. It’s a present-day reality.
Moon, the former Secretary General of the U.N. and Suarez, Miami’s Mayor, wrote,
Exelon Corporation, citing costs and other issues, announced that it would close the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in Lacey, NJ, in October, 2018.
Alex Geecan, covering the story in the Asbury Park Press, here, quoted Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
“The NRC requires “that the decommissioning process for a nuclear power plant must be completed within 60 years.”
So after producing power for 50 years, the plant will be managed, guarded, and eventually dismantled, a process that may take as long as 60 years.
On Dec. 21, 2012, I put $16 Million imaginary dollars into 16 real energy companies; $8.0 in the Sustainable Energy space and $8.0 in the fossil fuel space, $1.0 Million into each. Excluding the value of dividends and transaction costs, but including the bankruptcy or crash of three companies in the sustainable energy space,
As of the close of trading five (5) years later,
In addition,
You might have seen this ad, from PSEG or on their website, “NJ Needs Nuclear . com”
“It’s Cheaper to Keep Air Pollution-Free Nuclear Power than to Replace It,” the ad claims. And that is true. It’s also cheaper to drive a 10, 15, or 20 year old car than replace with a new one. Instead of a monthly car payment you have maintenance payments – new tires every 8 years or every 80,000 miles, whichever comes first, annual engine tune-ups.
On Dec. 21, 2012, I put $16 Million imaginary dollars into 16 real energy companies; $8.0 in the Sustainable Energy space and $8.0 in the fossil fuel space, $1.0 Million into each. Excluding the value of dividends and transaction costs, but including the bankruptcy or crash of three companies in the sustainable energy space,
In recent months the Sustainable Energy portfolio has dropped and the Fossil Fuel portfolio has increased. However, this may prove to be a short term correction that has more to do with macro-geopolitical events emanating from Washington, DC than global macroeconomic factors.
As of the close of trading 59 months later,
In Addition
The details are below.
On Dec. 21, 2012, I put $16 Million imaginary dollars into 16 real energy companies; $8.0 in the Sustainable Energy space and $8.0 in the fossil fuel space, $1.0 Million into each. Excluding the value of dividends and transaction costs, but including the bankruptcy or crash of three companies in the sustainable energy space,
As of the close of trading 58 months later,
On Dec. 21, 2012, I put $16 Million imaginary dollars into 16 real energy companies; $8.0 in the Sustainable Energy space and $8.0 in the fossil fuel space, $1.0 Million into each. Excluding the value of dividends and transaction costs, but including the bankruptcy or crash of three companies in the sustainable energy space,
As of the close of trading 57 months later,
As of the close of trading on September 21, 2017:
The Sustainable Energy portfolio includes First Solar (FSLR) and Sunpower Corp. (SPWR) in the solar space, Vestas (VWSYF), a wind company, Next Era Energy (NEE), a utility, Solazyme (SZYM) a biofuel company, Cree (CREE) and Lighting Sciences (LSCG) in the LED space and GT Advanced Tech (GTAT), which in Dec. 2012 made solar ovens for cooking PV wafers.
The fossil fuel companies are the oil companies British Petroleum (BP), Chevron Texaco (CVX), Conoco Phillips (COP), Exxon Mobil (XOM) and RD Shell (RDS.A), the now bankrupt coal company, Peabody Coal, and Haliburton (HAL) and Transocean (RIG), companies in the offshore oil and oil and gas drilling service industries.
The data are summarized beginning in Table 1, below.
| Summary Data | |||||
| Portfolio | 12/21/12 | 09/21/17 | Delta | Delta % | Annualized |
| Sustainable Energy | 8,000,000 | 20,315,038 | 12,315,038 | 153.94% | 32.41% |
| Fossil Fuel | 8,000,000 | 5,845,911 | -2,154,089 | -26.93% | -5.67% |
| DJI | 13,091 | 21,704 | 8,613 | 65.79% | 13.85% |
| S&P 500 | 1,430 | 2,428 | 998 | 69.79% | 14.69% |
| NASDAQ | 3,012 | 5,251 | 2,239 | 74.34% | 15.65% |
| Table 1 | |||||
The stock price data for the Sustainable Energy portfolio are in Table 2, below.
| Sustainable Energy Portfolio – Stock Prices | ||||||
| Item | Company | Symbol | 12/21/12 | 09/21/17 | Delta | Delta % |
| 1 | Cree | CREE | 34.0 | 24.6 | -9.37 | -27.56% |
| 2 | First Solar | FSLR | 31.0 | 48.8 | 17.76 | 57.29% |
| 3 | GT Adv. Tech. | GTAT | 3.0 | 0.0 | -2.98 | -99.33% |
| 4 | Lighting Science | LSCG | 0.8 | 0.0 | -0.73 | -97.19% |
| 5 | Next Era Energy | NEE | 70.0 | 146.8 | 76.78 | 109.69% |
| 6 | Sun Power | SPWR | 5.4 | 7.4 | 1.94 | 35.73% |
| 7 | Solazyme | SZYM | 8.3 | 2.2 | -6.19 | -74.22% |
| 8 | Vestas | VWS | 6.3 | 90.1 | 83.74 | 1327.10% |
| Note that GTATno longer exists | ||||||
| Table 2 | ||||||
The stock price data for the Fossil Fuel Portfolio are in Table 3, below.
| Fossil Fuel Portfolio – Stock Prices | ||||||
| Item | Company | Symbol | 12/21/12 | 09/21/17 | Delta | Delta % |
| 1 | BP | BP | 42.1 | 37.7 | -4.42 | -10.49% |
| 2 | Chevron Texaco | CVX | 109.7 | 116.5 | 6.76 | 6.16% |
| 3 | Conoco Philips | COP | 58.6 | 48.7 | -9.91 | -16.91% |
| 4 | Exxon Mobil | XOM | 87.2 | 79.9 | -7.34 | -8.41% |
| 5 | Royal Dutch Shell | RDS.A | 69.3 | 59.0 | -10.28 | -14.84% |
| 6 | Haliburton | HAL | 34.7 | 37.9 | 3.19 | 9.19% |
| 7 | Transocean | RIG | 45.6 | 9.1 | -36.56 | -80.11% |
| 8 | Peabody Coal | BTU | 395.3 | 0.0 | -395.25 | -100.00% |
| Table 3 | ||||||
The valuation data for the Sustainable Energy Portfolio are in Table 4, below.
| Sustainable Energy Portfolio – Valuation | ||||||
| Value | Delta | |||||
| Item | Company | Symbol | 12/21/12 | 09/21/17 | Delta | Delta % |
| 1 | Cree | CREE | 1,000 | 724 | -276 | -27.56% |
| 2 | First Solar | FSLR | 1,000 | 1,573 | 573 | 57.29% |
| 3 | GT Adv. Tech. | GTAT | 1,000 | 7 | -993 | -99.33% |
| 4 | Lighting Science | LSCG | 1,000 | 28 | -972 | -97.19% |
| 5 | Next Era Energy | NEE | 1,000 | 2,097 | 1,097 | 109.69% |
| 6 | Sun Power | SPWR | 1,000 | 1,357 | 357 | 35.73% |
| 7 | Solazyme | SZYM | 1,000 | 258 | -742 | -74.22% |
| 8 | Vestas | VWS | 1,000 | 14,271 | 13,271 | 1327.10% |
| total | 8,000 | 20,315 | 12,315 | 153.94% | ||
| Values in thousands. | ||||||
| Table 4 | ||||||
The valuation data for the Fossil Fuel Portfolio are in Table 5, below.
| Fossil Fuel Portfolio – Valuations | ||||||
| Value | Delta | |||||
| Item | Company | Symbol | 12/21/12 | 09/21/17 | Amount | Per Cent |
| 1 | BP | BP | 1,000 | 895 | -105 | -10.49% |
| 2 | Chevron Texaco | CVX | 1,000 | 1,062 | 62 | 6.16% |
| 3 | Conoco Philips | COP | 1,000 | 831 | -169 | -16.91% |
| 4 | Exxon Mobil | XOM | 1,000 | 916 | -84 | -8.41% |
| 5 | Royal Dutch Shell | RDS.A | 1,000 | 852 | -148 | -14.84% |
| 6 | Haliburton | HAL | 1,000 | 1,092 | 92 | 9.19% |
| 7 | Transocean | RIG | 1,000 | 199 | -801 | -80.11% |
| 8 | Peabody Coal | BTU | 1,000 | 0 | -1000 | -100.00% |
| total | 8,000 | 5,846 | -2154 | -26.93% | ||
| Values in thousands. | ||||||
| Table 5 | ||||||
The market capitalization data for the Sustainable Energy Portfolio are in Table 6.
| Sustainable Energy Portfolio | |||||
| Market Capitalization (Billions) | |||||
| Item | Company | 12/21/12 | 09/21/17 | Delta | Delta % |
| 1 | Cree | 3.90 | 2.41 | -1.49 | -38.21% |
| 2 | First Solar | 2.69 | 5.09 | 2.4 | 89.22% |
| 3 | GT Adv. Tech. | 0.36 | 0.00 | -0.35 | -98.88% |
| 4 | Lighting Science | 0.15 | 0.00 | -0.15 | -100.00% |
| 5 | Next Era Energy | 29.60 | 68.87 | 39.27 | 132.67% |
| 6 | Sun Power | 0.88 | 1.03 | 0.15 | 17.33% |
| 7 | Solazyme | 0.52 | 0.18 | -0.34 | -64.72% |
| 8 | Vestas | 1.48 | 19.48 | 18 | 1216.22% |
| total | 39.58 | 97.07 | 57.49 | 145.26% | |
| Table 6 | |||||
The market capitalization data for the Fossil Fuel Portfolio are in Table 7.
| Fossil Fuel Portfolio – Market Capitalization | |||||
| Market Capitalization (Billions) | |||||
| Item | Company | 12/21/12 | 09/21/17 | Delta | Delta % |
| 1 | BP | 133.8 | 124.11 | -9.69 | -7.24% |
| 2 | Chevron Texaco | 214.7 | 220.71 | 6.01 | 2.80% |
| 3 | Conoco Philips | 71.2 | 59.26 | -11.94 | -16.77% |
| 4 | Exxon Mobil | 397.7 | 338.50 | -59.2 | -14.89% |
| 5 | Royal Dutch Shell | 216.8 | 245.19 | 28.39 | 13.10% |
| 6 | Haliburton | 32.2 | 37.90 | 5.7 | 17.70% |
| 7 | Transocean | 16.4 | 3.55 | -12.85 | -78.35% |
| 8 | Peabody Coal | 6.37 | 0.00 | -6.37 | -100.00% |
| total | 1089.2 | 1029.22 | -59.95 | -5.50% | |
| Table 7 | |||||
The market capitalization data for the Big Oil portion of the Fossil Fuel Portfolio are in Table 8.
| Big Oil Portfolio – Market Capitalization | |||||
| Market Capitalization (Billions) | |||||
| Item | Company | 12/21/12 | 09/21/17 | Delta | Delta % |
| 1 | BP | 133.8 | 124.1 | -9.69 | -7.24% |
| 2 | Chevron Texaco | 214.7 | 220.7 | 6.01 | 2.80% |
| 3 | Conoco Philips | 71.2 | 59.3 | -11.94 | -16.77% |
| 4 | Exxon Mobil | 397.7 | 338.5 | -59.2 | -14.89% |
| 5 | Royal Dutch Shell | 216.8 | 245.2 | 28.39 | 13.10% |
| total | 1034.2 | 987.8 | -46.43 | -4.49% | |
| Table 8 | |||||
–
Posts in this series:
–
A co-founder of Popular Logistics, I hold an MBA in “Managing for Sustainability” from Marlboro College and a Bachelor’s of Science in Biology from the City University of New York College of Staten Island. Available as a speaker and consultant, I can be reached at “Popular Logistics . com” as “L Furman.”
On Dec. 21, 2012, I put $16 Million imaginary dollars into 16 real energy companies; $8.0 in the Sustainable Energy space and $8.0 in the fossil fuel space, $1.0 Million into each. Excluding the value of dividends and transaction costs, but including the bankruptcy or crash of three companies in the sustainable energy space,
As of the close of trading 56 months later: