RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:PYR AND DYAScarletSpider wrote: one last response and I will not post anything more outside of pyr because you are correct this is a pyr board after all. I would be careful with hydrogen because while the tech is proving to be a lot better than when it first came out in terms of transportablity and saftey due to being highly combustible, getting hydrogen is not easy and it will by looks not be as affective from my personal point of view as in using electricity and better performing and efficient batteries be it lithium based, cobalt whatever the case may be. Batteries are relatively accessible and have been the mainstay--with hydrogen despite having cannisters being provided dya still needs to refine it to capture it and that from my understanding and awareness of alterative energy is tougher than using conventional electric batteried sources.
Nevertheless the tech has improved by leaps and bounds but that isn't the one that i would bet on overall, however, it doesn't hurt to cover as many sources as possible because at the end of the day how i handle stocks is as i have mentioned manage your shares sell either faster at losses and cut them or take profits a little sooner on some shares and hold others longer term. It really doesn't matter whether something is the next big thing or not the bottom line to putting monies in any company is making sure you keep yourself as close to break even if not profitable in the near term or at worse case limited losses no more than 20% otherwise you will find yourself averaging down to bring your share value/price closer to where it may be trading and that is a tough beast to go with not to mention when share values go down it takes quite some time for them to go back up again that is why it is very important to take some profits on a run (have that money in hand) if the equity runs that's fine you have your cores--if the equity drops that's fine too you have monies in hand--if on the other hand you see loss of no more than 20% again sell some shares there--it goes up you still have your cores, it goes down you have money to buy again.
I have been reading on alternative fuels for quite some time because I mostly invest in them and avoid fossil/conventional ones until more recently if companies start to green their process. Even alternative fuels one has to be careful as to what their net benefits are--I believe in a past post I talked about ethanol and how much of a blunder that was. It consumed more energy to produce the ethanol where more c02 was released not to mention the corn crop that could have otherwise been used for food was wasted in trying to make alternative energy. Solar is the same sort of deal as there are furnaces that generate high intensive heat to form the silicon ingot first than another used to shape the cells at least two or three furnaces in the whole process which again releases tons of c02 as well as what the cells are treated with in terms of some solutions being toxic not to mention all the mining of the silicon that is involved in the whole process. At the end fo the day the only fair way to see whether any energy source is having positive net environmental effects is to measure everything in the process as to the energy consumed to produce something and how much it saves in burning off while used etc. I don't think any source of energy is without its drawbacks and as hard as i am on fossil fuels they may actually in the end be cleaner is some ways than many of the alternative ones using energy to save it.
That being said, i do believe climate change is very real and we need to curb it but how it is done and to what products well there needs to be strong and objective science that accounts for all steps of the process from beginning to end that is in my eyes the only fair way to measure things and stack them up one to the next.
You are posting on the wrong board...please stop bc it confuses or frustrates others