Unusually high trade at 3,668,437 share parcel today with the price chopping up & down between $3.21 $ 3.215.
I wonder where the SP will go from here,up?
It is to cost $115m to build one of the wind farms.Return $25m/yr if don't forward sell/hedge their production.Really?no value ?
So far there is no stand-alone grid connected wind farm anywhere in the world that makes a profit without government subsidies. Tilt's Australian wind farms also rely on subsidies, and I do believe that $25M per year is inclusive of these subsidies.
Here in good old NZ, our wind farms are only profitable due to the governments carbon credits and when the company running them has hydro to complement the wind farms.
So far there is no stand-alone grid connected wind farm anywhere in the world that makes a profit without government subsidies. Tilt's Australian wind farms also rely on subsidies, and I do believe that $25M per year is inclusive of these subsidies.
Here in good old NZ, our wind farms are only profitable due to the governments carbon credits and when the company running them has hydro to complement the wind farms.
I guess the counter argument might be that the burning of fossil fuels is effectively subsidised because the company manufacturering the product and the end consumer do not pay the imputed costs associated with global warming etc.. these costs are passed onto the wider public/future generations to deal with..
I guess the counter argument might be that the burning of fossil fuels is effectively subsidised because the company manufacturering the product and the end consumer do not pay the imputed costs associated with global warming etc.. these costs are passed onto the wider public/future generations to deal with..
That would only be an argument if it could be shown that carbon trading, carbon taxes etc. will in anyway alter the earth's temperature. Even the IPCC do not make that claim; they see these taxes as a way of helping 3rd world countries catch up with 1st world countries.
The climate change is real and will lead to fundamental changes in energy supply. The NZ Electricity system is about 55% non carbon emitting , there will be carbon taxes within 2 years which will make solar and batteries cheaper than grid supply for many remote areas. This is starting to happen now.
I guess the counter argument might be that the burning of fossil fuels is effectively subsidised because the company manufacturering the product and the end consumer do not pay the imputed costs associated with global warming etc.. these costs are passed onto the wider public/future generations to deal with..
You could possibly make the public health argument - that the deaths and illnesses caused by burning stuff are a bad thing.
After all, London banned coal fires decades ago. . . something to do with lots of people dying from smog.
Bookmarks