thoughts?
Honda. They have the overall highest mpg fleet of vehicles. They’re about to introduce a brand new hybrid to compete with Prius. Every other car maker lost about 20-30% in sales from last year but Honda increased sales 1%. Toyota is right behind them but they have a ways to go to ramp up production of their hybrids.
any thought on the TATA’s they are losing money on their Nano venture due to cost overruns and political mishaps. But they still are a major player in the commercial vehicle segment
I think that in the last Geneve’s auto salon they said that TATA’s vehicles wouldn’t be allowed in Europe, US and the likes… Indian and Chinese markets still account for 2 B people
Fisker
D’Artagnan You should check the specifications for the one tonne ACE and the new ‘world truck’ stated to be rolled out in Sept08 Its true that they don’t have a presence in the European market. But the Jaguar acquisition and the cost over runs over the Singur plant (close to $71.4mn …reported to be higher) is causing a huge drain on the company’s resources
HONDA… They are the most innovative auto manufacturers. They are very keen towards research on Hybrids and fuel cells. By 2020, fuel cells are expected to capture most of the market and then Honda might be one of the major players. Though other companies are also conducting lots of research in this field, Honda seems to be the one with most innovations. The automotive technologies currently researched about are: 1. Hybrids - Main component is the battery and there are lots of investment in making the battery more efficient and light. 2. Plug in hybrids 3. Fuel Cells 4. Biofuels
gauravku Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > HONDA… > > They are the most innovative auto manufacturers. > They are very keen towards research on Hybrids and > fuel cells. By 2020, fuel cells are expected to > capture most of the market and then Honda might be > one of the major players. > > Though other companies are also conducting lots of > research in this field, Honda seems to be the one > with most innovations. > > The automotive technologies currently researched > about are: > 1. Hybrids - Main component is the battery and > there are lots of investment in making the battery > more efficient and light. > 2. Plug in hybrids > 3. Fuel Cells > 4. Biofuels What do you think is the best way to make a pure bet on fuel cells?
> > What do you think is the best way to make a pure > bet on fuel cells? I wouldn’t bet on fuel cells. Within 10 years, there will be numerous options for electric vehicles that are cost-effective and require no infrastructure. I don’t see hydrogen playing a large role.
aldford Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > What do you think is the best way to make a > pure > > bet on fuel cells? > > > I wouldn’t bet on fuel cells. Within 10 years, > there will be numerous options for electric > vehicles that are cost-effective and require no > infrastructure. I don’t see hydrogen playing a > large role. Well what do you see holding the largest market share?
IronMan Wrote: > Well what do you see holding the largest market > share? This is just a personal opinion based on not much. I think battery technology continues to improve and in 10 years the average 2 car family will be buying an all-electric vehicle for around the town and a plug-in hybrid that gets 150mpg for long trips. This requires no major shift in infrastructure and meets our needs, so I don’t see any reason why hydrogen would become a major player. Full size economical electric cars will start hitting in 2009 and 2010 and my guess is they won’t be able to make enough of them.
In set another step to emasculate the American family. Forget it, I’m driving > 6 liters then.
JoeyDVivre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In set another step to emasculate the American > family. Forget it, I’m driving > 6 liters then. …no cats, carburated, and steel bodied…it’s the only way to go; polar bears are overrated anyway.
Best play in the auto space to position a portfolio for is not a manufacturer at all, but rather the auto parts retailers. The current macro backdrop and consumer behaviorial shifts sets parts retailers up well and several of them are sitting at some (increasingly) attractive valuations. I am long two names in particular, but Ill hold back the names as not to “pump” my picks. Id personally look for companies with increasing market share, solid earnings despite headwinds, affirmed credit ratings (I don’t put much faith in ratings agencies however) and ones that, I don’t know, are looking to buy back $500 million of their stock… 
PS I hedge all positions I take. Good luck.
I believe fuel cells are going to penetrate the Auto market in a big way by 2020 - 2030. Aldford is very correct in his/her prediction about batteries, however, following are some of the comparisons between battery (plug in hybrid and hybrid cars) and fuel cells. -Lots of investment is made in the fuel cell technology, especially in the US and Canada. (Federal Government has proposed investment of $2.7 billion and the Canadian government has invested $30 million recently). -The inputs used for hydrogen production can be replenished (hydrogen, oxygen, alcohols, hydrocarbons etc.) -Hydrogen produces higher amount of energy which means more miles per unit of fuel. -As of now batteries are heavier and have less efficiency. -Both of them are green technology, however, fuel cell tends to have higher advantage as the by product is water. -Once the technology commercializes, there will be more tax credits for fuel cells. -One of the problems with fuel cells is that hydrogen is highly inflammable which is the reason why people are afraid in constructing fuel refill stations in the main city. However, as technology progresses, there might be several ways to avoid such a problem. -Fuel cells have various other applications. Auto is one of the majot application area. There are several other points in the favor of and against fuel cells, but, offcourse the favorable propositions have more weight because of which there is so much spending in the technology. However, it will take a while to commercialize fuel cells. So, any investment in fuel cell, as per my understanding should provide profits. However, its better to hedge the exposure on the basis of your risk appetite.
Good idea, who knows how hard the market will rip once the press gets wind of an AF stock recommendation. >but Ill hold back the names as not to “pump” my picks.
gauravku Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I believe fuel cells are going to penetrate the > Auto market in a big way by 2020 - 2030. > Aldford is very correct in his/her prediction > about batteries, however, following are some of > the comparisons between battery (plug in hybrid > and hybrid cars) and fuel cells. > > -Lots of investment is made in the fuel cell > technology, especially in the US and Canada. > (Federal Government has proposed investment of > $2.7 billion and the Canadian government has > invested $30 million recently). If lots of investment was the criterion, then we’d all be using cheap, limitless power from Fusion reactors. ITER (one european research project) is due to cost $10 billion on its own - but no one is predicting a viable commercial reactor this side of 2050. That’d be hydrogen powered too… > -The inputs used for hydrogen production can be > replenished (hydrogen, oxygen, alcohols, > hydrocarbons etc.) At what energy cost? How are you “replenishing”? > -Hydrogen produces higher amount of energy which > means more miles per unit of fuel. Not true. Diesel fuel and even petrol (gasoline) are bothe >4x more energy dense than hydrogen. > -As of now batteries are heavier and have less > efficiency. > -Both of them are green technology, however, fuel > cell tends to have higher advantage as the by > product is water. Green as in “untested”. They still need to get their power from somewhere. We don’t have a source of hydrogen gas on this planet - it escapes into space. We have loads of water (H2O), but you need energy to split that, and we have Hydrocarbons, like methane (CH4) or propane (C3H8), but guess what? They require energy to split or you release carbon dioxide (square 1) > -Once the technology commercializes, there will be > more tax credits for fuel cells. Nonsense. Tax credits are there to create commercialisation, not once they are in place. > -One of the problems with fuel cells is that > hydrogen is highly inflammable Explosive actually. > which is the reason > why people are afraid in constructing fuel refill > stations in the main city. However, as technology > progresses, there might be several ways to avoid > such a problem. Can’t really see how - Hydrogen just boils off/corrodes containers. > -Fuel cells have various other applications. Auto > is one of the majot application area. Fuel cells do have a future. Just not necessarily as a green solution to transport. > > There are several other points in the favor of and > against fuel cells, but, offcourse the favorable > propositions have more weight because of which > there is so much spending in the technology. > However, it will take a while to commercialize > fuel cells. > > So, any investment in fuel cell, as per my > understanding should provide profits. However, its > better to hedge the exposure on the basis of your > risk appetite. Your understanding is faulty. Hydrogen is just a means of moving energy around (and a rubbish one at that). People have got dazzled by the fact that 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O + energy - that you get water and energy from burning hydrogen. But you have to consider how you make the Hydrogen - and that takes energy. If (and that’s a big IF) people want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions - it is very simple. Travel less. Insulate you home. Don’t use air con. Buy a more fuel efficient car - and drive it fuel efficiently (how you drive is more important than what you drive)
>If lots of investment was the criterion, then we’d all be using cheap, limitless power >from Fusion reactors. ITER (one european research project) is due to cost $10 billion >on its own - but no one is predicting a viable commercial reactor this side of 2050. >That’d be hydrogen powered too… we can’t compare the fission of hydrogen with nuclear fusion reaction. Nuclear Fusion is calls for a huge investment as it is not very easy to control it. Again, the investment numbers were quoted to show the amount of interest the industry has in fuel cells. No one just invests money without considering the returns and risks. >At what energy cost? How are you “replenishing”? Hydrogen can be produced by a number of ways, one of the most used ways are electrolyzers. Offocurse, there is a cost associated with hydrogen production. But, then you don’t get anything for free. Even the production of petrol calls for large costs from exploration, drilling, refining etc. There are several large scale electrolyzers in place (however they use natural gas, coal and oil which are conventional sources), but the hydrogen is mainly used for chemical and refining industries. Electrolyzer is another technology in which lots of research is going on and the cost of hydrogen production is epected to reduce in the long run (Fuel cells are also expected to be fully commercialized after 2020). Another point is that Electrolyzer also produces oxygen which also has got many applications. Price of hydrogen produced from electrolysis is around $6 per kg (assuming cost of electricity to be 10 cents / KWh. Electrolyzer uses water to produce hydrogen (water is off course a renewable resource), also some of the other sources are replenishable barring some. >Not true. Diesel fuel and even petrol (gasoline) are bothe >4x more energy dense than >hydrogen. The energy content of a kilo of hydrogen is about the same as a gallon of petrol, but the efficiency of the fuel cell is far higher than the internal combustion engine. You can check this from any scientific source. So you may be right in your statement if we are comparing 4 gallons of petrol with 1 kg of hydrogen, which is not a very robust comparison. >Green as in “untested”. They still need to get their power from somewhere. We don’t >have a source of hydrogen gas on this planet - it escapes into space. We have loads >of water (H2O), but you need energy to split that, and we have Hydrocarbons, like >methane (CH4) or propane (C3H8), but guess what? They require energy to split or >you release carbon dioxide (square 1) Green as in environment friendly. You are very correct that hydrogen is not a producer of energy but it is a carrier of energy. But it depends on the amount of energy (cost) it produces and the amount of energy or cost it consumes. >Nonsense. Tax credits are there to create commercialisation, not once they are in place. Tax credits are off course to create commercialization. But they might continue after commercialization as well and then there are carbon credits and other incentives for environment friendly fuels. >Your understanding is faulty. Your perspective. >If (and that’s a big IF) people want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions - it is very >simple. Travel less. Insulate you home. Don’t use air con. Buy a more fuel efficient car - >and drive it fuel efficiently (how you drive is more important than what you drive) Very correct. But, you say first about what to drive and then say how to drive, so, I believe what you drive is more important. It doesn’t matter how you drive a fuel efficient car (higher mileage) or a luxury car (low mileage), fuel efficient car will always consume less fuel than the fuel inefficient car. So, how and what to drive complement each other, one might not be able to weigh them. Also, if one stops investing in technolgies and innovation and let the world continue as it is continuing then there will be no growth and no inventions. Also, the conventional sources of energy are going to be more scarce and we need to find alternatives for the same and work towards reducing the cost to produce. We can compare this with any industry, initially off course the costs are high and the returns are less but with technology development and improvement, there is a balane between costs and returns.
It really sucks to have someone as smart as chrismaths rain on your parade. Anyway, the point that there are much greater savings in efficient driving (which usually means not driving at all) than exotic technology is certainly true. It would be nice if we would collectively do something about that. In Connecticut, I have seen much more interest in blaming oil speculators than any movements toward carpooling, telecommuting, mass transit, bicycle commuting, etc… There are huge waiting lists for spots in train station parking lots and many commuter trains are standing room only. So I fully agree with that point. On the other hand, I’m a big buyer on developing fuel cell technology (well, spiritually if not financially). The fact is that Honda has one that is moderately practical and on the roads (for a ruinous price). That’s a great demonstration of technological possibility. A certain amount of driving is inevitable and healthy. Fuel cells might not be the solution but it’s a pretty good try.
I can’t be bothered with most of the stuff in that post, which is based on a very wobbly understanding of basic physics (fission of hydrogen???) but one point I will pick up on: gauravku Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But, you say first about what to > drive and then say how to drive, so, I believe > what you drive is more important. It doesn’t > matter how you drive a fuel efficient car (higher > mileage) or a luxury car (low mileage), fuel > efficient car will always consume less fuel than > the fuel inefficient car. A show in the UK recently did a test with an BMW M3 and a Toyota Prius. You can see it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PP6fe6i1vaY I think that shows pretty clearly that driving style matters. JoeyDVivre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A certain amount of driving is inevitable and > healthy. Fuel cells might not be the solution but > it’s a pretty good try. Absolutely. I just don’t think hydrogen as a fuel is viable, and I’d rather see the money invested elsewhere that might yield practical results. Fuel cells are really cool - and in fact they’ve been round longer than the internal combustion engine. I just struggle to see how you combine them with a usable fuel and apply that to transport. Maybe the economics will change. But I just reckon there are better options out there. For a start, lets stop burning oil/gas/coal in power stations, and use nuclear. It’s the only really viable alternative. We just need to persuade the Aussies to take all the waste and bury it somewhere near lake eyre…