Consumer Energy Report is now Energy Trends Insider -- Read More »

By Robert Rapier on Oct 17, 2011 with 18 responses

Why I Didn’t Short KiOR

In a recent column on the metric of “success” in Cleantech, I wrote that the measure of success that will matter to most people is whether the company sells energy at an affordable price:

I simply don’t think that the fact that one can talk up a company and then IPO it at a profit is the proper metric for success. Some of those companies that have been IPO’d are grossly overvalued. Many of them won’t be around for long. (In fact, I wrestled hard this week with a decision to short one of them; I ultimately decided not to — but not because I don’t think the company is grossly overvalued). So is a company that is IPO’d, makes initial investors some money, and then ultimately goes bankrupt without producing energy a success? Not for the general public it isn’t. Those “successes” do not help wean us off of oil.

The company that I considered grossly overvalued and thought about shorting was KiOR, a company that Vinod Khosla IPO’d earlier this year. Some people already knew this, because they wrote to me and asked. In fact, at least one venture capital firm called me a month ago and asked which company I thought was so overvalued. When I wrote that article, KiOR sported a market capitalization of right at $2 billion. Between the time I wrote that article and now, one analyst downgraded KiOR, the National Academy of Sciences released a report suggesting that KiOR will have a tough time competing against projected oil prices, and KiOR’s market cap has been shaved by 25%.

There are three questions I would like to answer about KiOR that touch on areas of due diligence and investing (both of which I will be talking about at this year’s ASPO Conference). First, why did I feel that the company was so overvalued? Second, why didn’t I short the company myself? And third, why didn’t I name them in my essay?

KiOR’s Value

There were a couple of reasons that I considered KiOR to be grossly overvalued. The first comes from a comparison to competing companies. KiOR aspires to convert woody biomass into fuel. There are a number of companies — some publicly traded, some not — that are doing the same thing. Take a company like Ensyn. They have been doing the wood to pyrolysis oil route for more than 20 years, and have operated a 75 dry ton per day facility for the past four years (which I actually visited a couple of years ago). They are in a joint venture with UOP called Envergent Technologies to produce transportation fuel from pyrolysis oil. UOP is the gold standard for upgrading many types of oil, and thus they are a very credible partner in this venture. So I see Envergent being far ahead of KiOR at this stage as far as actually demonstrating they can convert wood into fuel.

Then I look at a company like Rentech. Their approach is different; they are gasifying biomass and then converting it into fuels. In fact, Rentech’s product is transportation fuel while KiOR’s will still need to be converted in a refinery. Rentech is run by people with a great deal of gasification experience. (Full disclosure, Rentech’s CTO and Executive Vice President was my manager at ConocoPhillips (COP), Harold Wright). At COP Harold oversaw the design and construction of a 400 barrel per day gas-to-liquids (GTL) facility that started up and ran successfully. Rentech reported a profit in the latest quarter (albeit due to a fertilizer plant they own), owns two unique gasification technologies, operates the only integrated GTL facility in the United States (demonstration scale at 400 gallons per day) and has several projects in their pipeline. If you ask me which company — KiOR or Rentech — is more likely to be producing fuel 10 years from now my answer would be Rentech. Their market cap? $200 million, a tenth that of KiOR’s (Update: Rentech has risen to $250 million over the past week).

Finally, look at the product. KiOR is trying to produce a commodity, and they do not have a significant (if any) advantage over competitors. Should they ultimately be successful, their profit margins will be at best in line with those of other energy companies. While oil companies get a lot of press for having huge earnings, that’s not because they have huge profit margins. They have small profit margins but operate at enormous scale. Even if KiOR’s wildest projections prove true, they are going to be a tiny fraction of the scale of an integrated oil company, and therefore their small profit margin is going to translate into a small profit (again, at best) and a price to earnings ratio in line with that of an oil company (generally mid to high single digits). KiOR has been priced for explosive growth, but I can’t see them producing enough revenue to fuel explosive growth.

Why Not Short It Myself?

I wasn’t kidding when I wrote that I wrestled with this decision. Over the years, there have been a number of companies that I believed were overvalued, and potentially destined to go out of business (not suggesting the latter for KiOR). In 2006, I wrote about a company called Pacific Ethanol (PEIX). I was convinced that they too were grossly overvalued for reasons I spelled out in that article. Their market cap when I wrote that article was around $500 million after briefly exceeding $1 billion. I took some heat from people who insisted that I didn’t understand the big picture, and since people like Bill Gates were investing in them that I was an idiot for suggesting they were overvalued.

Three months after I wrote that article, Pacific Ethanol’s valuation was down 40%. Today’s market cap on PEIX is under $8 million (down more than 98% from when I wrote the article), and they have been through a Chapter 11 bankruptcy since then. After the stock had plummeted, I heard from a brokerage who told me they had advised their clients to short the stock, partially on the basis of my article. So, I had some regrets over failing to take action based on my analysis. I helped others make money, but I earned nothing even though I was exactly right on my assessment.

Another case is Xethanol, where I also made $0 despite being exactly right on my assessment.  Xethanol went bankrupt, as I thought they would. Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban made some money, but again I didn’t act on my own convictions. (Mark Cuban did offer me free Mavs tickets for my assessment — but I was never able to take him up on that offer).

So along comes KiOR. I told a colleague recently that if there was one thing I was certain about, it was that KiOR is not a $2 billion company. My expectation was that the value would be shaved by at least $1 billion. So I started looking into shorting it, and then I remembered why I don’t short stocks.

Shorting isn’t like just buying a stock. If I am convinced that a company is undervalued (as was the case with PBR in 2008), then I can buy it and just wait. But you can’t do that with shorting. I could be correct that within three years the share price of KiOR is a fraction of its current value — and yet still lose my shirt. There are two reasons for this. The first is that I have to borrow shares in order to short them, and I have to pay interest on what I borrowed. I checked, and I would be paying something like 9% interest while I waited for the share price to fall. So I need to be right not only on the direction, but on the timing. If the fall comes later rather than sooner, that 9% interest will eat into my return.

But the second reason is more problematic. Even a completely worthless company (again, not saying that about KiOR) can be bid up to ridiculous values. Consider once more Pacific Ethanol’s $1 billion market cap. Had I shorted them on the way up — say at $200 million — my position would have been wiped out as the market cap rocketed to over $1 billion before plummeting. So you have to be right not only on the direction and timing, but you have to hope that exuberant investors don’t bid the price up before the fall. When I am buying — as long as I am not doing so on margin — a short-term price drop doesn’t hurt me. When shorting, a short-term price spike can wipe you out.

Had I been able to simply make a bet that the value of KiOR would be lower than $2 billion in two years, I would have done that. But to my knowledge there is no investment vehicle that works like that.

But a final reason for not shorting is that it compromises my ability to write about the company. That’s not exactly a deal-breaker; after all I can short and tell people why I shorted. But then anything I write about KiOR after that would be viewed with suspicion. I would have a vested interest, and therefore some people would dismiss my arguments by simply saying “Yeah, but he shorted the stock. What do you expect him to say?”

I do have investments in the area of energy (after all, I believe you should invest in what you know), but I don’t write about those companies. If I mention them, I disclose my investments, but it is cleaner just to not write about them so there is no question. If I get too involved in investing in energy companies, it won’t be long before everything I write can be cast in terms of “Yeah, but is that an objective analysis, or because he has a vested interest?” If I short KiOR, then criticisms of any of Vinod Khosla’s other investments will be suspect in some people’s eyes.

Why Not Name Them?

There are two reasons that I didn’t name them. The first is that I don’t want there to be a perception that my prediction was a self-fulling prophecy. If I wrote a negative article and then the stock price fell, some may blame me, rightfully or not. I know because some angry investors blamed me for Xethanol’s plunge (note that I am not insinuating that I can influence a stock price — I am just addressing perceptions here). So I want to avoid the perception that I influenced a company’s prospects. That’s the same reason I didn’t name Range Fuels in my predictions for 2011. I wrote:

I also expect that the bills are going to start coming due for some of the high profile ‘next generation’ biofuel producers, and that we will see bankruptcies from some of the companies I have discussed in this column. Some of them — probably most of them — do not have a sustainable business model, and the length of time they will be able to avoid bankruptcy is going to be solely dependent on how much cash they can manage to get infused into their operations.

I was thinking specifically of two companies when I wrote that: Range Fuels and one other that has gotten a government loan guarantee (which I think will ultimately go the way of Solyndra) and will probably eek out another year or so before going belly-up.

The second reason is that I am not being paid to provide investment advice. I can be right nine times out of ten, and that one time I will have to deal with people who are angry over my free advice. And of course even if I am completely right about a short, the longs will be angry with me. So I just don’t see any benefit, but lots of downside, to offering free investment advice on publicly traded companies.

I adopted this position after a couple of incidents with companies I have discussed in this column. Pacific Ethanol and Xethanol were two examples. I was right, but I dealt with criticism from investors of both companies. But what if I had been wrong? I took a risk for no reward. I could have invited lawsuits from some random investor who lost money on the basis of my comments. So I try to play it safe.

Then why name KiOR now? Because they have already been downgraded and the stock has already started to fall. In fact, another blogger recently weighed in with the same sort of internal analysis that I had done:

KiOR: $1.7B Market Cap With No Revenue

The author, who did short KiOR, quotes me in the article and ultimately concludes that “KIOR’s present fair value is less than 10% of the current market valuation.” He also notes that it is “rumored” that the stock price is being propped up by one of the major investors buying up the float. That isn’t a rumor; you can see it in the SEC filings for KiOR.

So at this point, I am not saying anything that others have not now begun to say publicly. But I will continue to be very careful about publicly criticizing specific publicly traded companies because I do not want to influence anyone’s investment decisions on the basis of an article that may be lacking some specific caveats about the company.

Conclusion

I will continue to discuss big picture trends, but this blog will never provide specific investment advice. I will try to provide the tools and perspectives needed to do the technical evaluation for specific companies and sectors, but your ultimate investment decisions should be entirely your own.

As far as KiOR, I have been asked about the company’s prospects numerous times. I wrote an article about them previously — Crude Oil From Biomass: Evaluating KiOR in which I discussed their process. In a nutshell, I think they have a technology that does work and is scalable. However, I mention in that article that I think the nature of their product has been misrepresented — it is by no means a crude oil equivalent. Based on the nature of their product, it is hard to envision that the company will have high profit margins. Therefore, I will be stunned if they sport a multi-billion dollar market cap 2 or 3 years from now.

Further Reading: Due Diligence: How to Evaluate a Renewable Energy Technology

  1. By perry1961 on October 17, 2011 at 5:40 am

    “Had I been able to simply make a bet that the value of KiOR would be lower than $2 billion in two years, I would have done that. But to my knowledge there is no investment vehicle that works like that.”

    Try some put options. Your loss is limited to the premium, or commission, you pay on the options. Time is also on your side. Let’s say you wanted to short $50,000 worth of a stock. The put options might cost you $2500, or about 5%. If they are worthless, or upside down at expiry, you let them expire. All you lost was that initial premium. If the stock price has declined by 50%, you stand to make $25,000 minus the premiums. In the meantime, you haven’t tied up a lot of capital, and you aren’t sweating bullets if the stock catches fire.

    [link]      
  2. By Alex on October 17, 2011 at 6:22 pm

    Why would you do biomass -> pyroil -> refining -> fuel, with the additional process step and the refining losses, if you could do biomass -> FT -> fuel?

    [link]      
  3. By RShearer on October 17, 2011 at 7:23 pm

    According to Yahoo, about 31% of Kior’s float is short (2.86 million shares). So it would seem a lot of people or some big players agree with RR.

    Perry, CBOE does not show any options for Kior.

    [link]      
  4. By Walt on October 17, 2011 at 7:54 pm

    RShearer said:

    According to Yahoo, about 31% of Kior’s float is short (2.86 million shares). So it would seem a lot of people or some big players agree with RR.

    Perry, CBOE does not show any options for Kior.


     

    I guess the question is whether they can hold the price until the stock restrictions on management and key founders are lifted in December, and then they sell out immediately while the stock tumbles.  I would not be surprised if the Khosla Ventures owns shorts as well.  Millions made on these clean tech companies was his comment…I can see why now.  It’s not the technology stupid…any technology will do.

    [link]      
  5. By carbonbridge on October 18, 2011 at 11:25 am

    Walt said:

    Millions made on these clean tech companies was his comment…I can see why now.  It’s not the technology stupid…any technology will do.


     

    Yes, I agree.  Too bad that early-bird [exit strategy] profits are sometimes skinned by management and investors initially after IPO’s are hyped and launched.  The public and many investors themselves cannot properly fathom nor interpret the range of biofuel technologies and products presently being promoted.  While I’ve mentioned this before, I’ll ask once again — “Should an alternative biofuel be capable of easily biodegrading as its first criterion for grants, subsidy or tax credits?”

    How many capitalists even understand pyrolysis (incomplete, partial gasification) of biomass to produce thick oils needing further and extensive refining to simply become another float-on-water (non-biodegradable) substitute for conventionally extracted crude oils? 

    The missing Oxygen atom (while non-BTU value – yet that important element which fans the flames) is what ALSO alters molecular polarity and converts float-on-water oils into water soluble, oil soluble, coal soluble and biodegradable fuel alcohols.

    Even renewable oils obtained from plants and animal fats still float-on-water just like last summer’s Gulf Gusher did until Corexit was sprayed on those giant plumes of crude causing these oils to sink out of sight.

     

    OT:  I found both of these news article summaries in Peak Oil News this morning to be topical.  Complete versions of these two articles exist on PON’s daily site…

    18. LIVING BY REACTORS, JAPANESE ARE SPLIT  By Chester Dawson DJ TSURUGA, Japan – The mayor of this port city near half a dozen nuclear reactors has become one of Japan’s most outspoken advocates for nuclear power following the Fukushima Daiichi plant disaster in March. The mayor of the neighboring city, once supportive, has become a staunch skeptic. That standoff among communities near reactors illustrates the collapse of a 40-year national consensus promoting nuclear power. That’s not only blunting a long-planned expansion of nuclear energy but has increased the possibility that Japan could be devoid of nuclear power within six months, when the last active reactor goes offline for maintenance, without the necessary local support to resume operations. Tsuruga, an industrial city of 70,000 people on the Sea of Japan, is a focal point in the debate since it is within a six-mile radius of five commercial reactors-including Japan’s oldest, which started up in 1970-and two plutonium-fueled test reactors, one of which has been decommissioned while the other is suspended. Two new reactors have also been proposed for the area. Four of the area’s five commercial reactors are down for maintenance, with the fifth slotted to go offline mid-December.

    24. NEW LOBBYING PUSH TARGETS KEEPING ETHANOL BLENDERS’ CREDIT FOR E85 ONLY  Platts October 18, 2011 – With the tax credit for ethanol due to expire at year’s end, ethanol backers have formed a new coalition to raise funds for a lobbying campaign to amend the federal tax law, but only for E85. The group, the Coalition for E85, is not looking to extend the life of the tax credit for E10 fuel, which is now widely distributed throughout the US. It says it is prepared to sacrifice that subsidy in order to get taxpayer underwriting for the development of E85, a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% unleaded. Currently, fuel blenders receive a 4.5 cents/gal tax credit for E10 and a 38.25 cents/gal credit for E85 under the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), which expires in December. Under the VEETC, the 14 billion gallons of ethanol used in E10 cost approximately $6.3 billion a year, while the subsidy for the 120 million gallons in E85 cost about $54 million a year.

     

    [link]      
  6. By Kit P on October 18, 2011 at 4:00 pm

    “still float-on-water ”

     

    If you spill fuel, you have to pay to clean it up. Do not spill fuel.

     

    “OT: I found both of these news article summaries in Peak Oil News”

     

    For those who do not like me to post on nukes, I did not bring it up.

    [link]      
  7. By carbonbridge on October 18, 2011 at 7:47 pm

    Kit P said:

    “still float-on-water”  If you spill fuel, you have to pay to clean it up.  Do not spill fuel.  For those who do not like me to post on nukes, I did not bring it up.


     

    Kit:  You live for nukes, it has been your career – I’m sure that you have spent your life defending that which you do for a living.  And most of us reading here are very well aware of your acceptance of anything nuclear-powered…  You jump proactively into ANYTHING to do with nukes.  I thought that the Japanese news herein was interesting and timely…  Posting a few maps below showing the radioactive damage done to the whole of Europe and even to the USA.  I’m holding back for now the really ugly pics of injured/dying people from Chernobyl accident & Hiroshima atom bomb.  Don’t worry, be happy!!!

    And please remember, -  S_ _ _ does happen!!!  So…  –  Oil-based hydrocarbon fuels are accidently going make it into the oceans, rivers, lakes and groundwater no matter what.  Uncombusted fossil emissions blankets most large urban areas as an oil spill in the sky which we see and breathe as brown urban smog.

    The problem with hydrocarbon fuels on this entire blue planet is that they all phase separate from water – yet we can see liquid hydrocarbon spills until Corexit immerses these blights of crude oil out of sight – yet not out of mind for aquatic life and ocean food-stocks…  That missing Oxygen atom which I keep lecturing about is what changes hydrocarbon oils and coals [plus tires, garbage, sewage, CO2 & biomass like beetle-killed pine] into water soluble, oil soluble, coal soluble, biodegradable, oxycarbon alcohols.  AND WHEN an unfortunate [accident] spill does occur – then Mother Nature’s aquatic bugs, green trees and grasses can eat these dilute alcohols for lunch and pop off a water molecule, – then look for the next spilled and diluted fuel molecule to eat. 

    This isn’t complicated rocket science – it also isn’t invisible radiation and determining [guessing] how much of these rads we can absorb before we cripple and die…  Big time difference.  The Japanese people are scared.  There are others on this planet who are likewise seriously worried.  Thank you anyway Kit for your criticisms and please do have a nice day.  :-)

    -Mark

     

    [link]      
  8. By carbonbridge on October 19, 2011 at 2:58 am

    Kit P said:

    However, Mark was not at Chernobyl. He got what I got, zero exposure.  Mark labeled his cartoon ‘Chernobyl Rad USA’ but got zero exposure from this too because he was not born yet. Mark’s mislabeld cartoon is for ‘US fallout exposure’ from surface bomb testing during the cold war.  US fallout exposure   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N…..ar_fallout


     

    OT:  Apologies for drifting so far off the subject matter of RR’s current post…

     

    Dear Kit P,

    Thank you for calling my attention to a mislabeled MAP.  Your link above on Wiki identifies the image just below as the [radiation exposure] thyroid cancer incidence in the USA from atmospheric nuke bomb tests exploded between 1951 and 1962.  IF Wiki is correct here, then these incidences of domestic thyroid cancers were not from Chernobyl radiation blowing over as I’d mistakenly interpreted and instead came from U.S. nuke bombs detonated into our own atmosphere.

    U.S. Thyroid Cancers Map

    Originally, I’d gleaned this map from Google IMAGES by simply typing in the word CHERNOBYL and there was NO accompanying description with this map [as I've inserted within it in black text] yet it was directly linked with Chernobyl nuke accident images.  Hundreds of images pop up as you can see from the examples below.  This is also where I was able to locate other radioactivity release maps as well.

     

    Sometimes errors are made in photographic categorization over on Google as illustrated in the image below.  These pics are all from Chernobyl except one of the Space Shuttle blowing up in the sky over Florida.  That image obviously should not have been filed within this set of photographs – and this is how I’d come across the USA Thyroid Cancer map which instead [ostensibly] is from nuke bomb tests.  Mea culpa.  I’ll watch and read closer any further images or data which I may choose to copy and share herein.

     

    To be more precise, these people below suffering from THYROID CANCER are from the Chernobyl community and are not U.S. citizens represented by all the red coloring on this same U.S. Thyroid Map in question.  Apparently invisible rads can cause thyroid cancer whether these rads come from core meltdowns at power plants or from nuke bomb detonations.

    Kit, why you feel that rads from core meltdowns are not blowing between countries and continents, I cannot fathom.  Just like your statement “Mark labeled his cartoon ‘Chernobyl Rad USA’ but got zero exposure from this too because he was not born yet. Mark’s mislabeld cartoon is for ‘US fallout exposure’ from surface bomb testing during the cold war.”

    Kit, I’ve never met you nor ever spoken to you – an anonymous blogger on this RR site.  To the contrary, I’ve signed up here as a member and have used my complete and full name with middle initial several times in past discussions.   I’ve also exposed and publicly discussed a portion of my own work which you argued and ranted against last winter on these same RR blog pages.  Do you remember OR have you forgotten our detailed and public exchanges?

    How you could determine that I was not born yet while USA nuke bomb tests were going off I really don’t know.  The first U.S. map graphic on this post above illustrates USA bomb test Thyroid Cancers and it covers the dates of 1951 to 1962.  I was very much alive for all but one of those test years and living at the green X which is placed in Montana on that same map near the n.e. entrance to Yellowstone Park.  How could you make such a statement like this Kit?  Please don’t confuse me with someone else.  Thank you.

    And finally, – I don’t consider radiation poisoning to be drama at all.  It is incredibly real and hundreds of thousands of people and animals (primarily in Europe) have been personally effected.  Shall I cut and paste more exposure data herein?  Would you like to argue over estimates of people and animals maimed, injured or killed from this nuclear accident?  Please Google CHERNOBYL and review what shows up under many different categories, images being just one of them.

    Let it go Kit.  Nuke problems are daily news on this crowded planet, I don’t consider nukes to be harmless AND there will be something else popping up tomorrow and someone may comment on it.  Personally, I expect to be exposed to a lot more info about the Fukushima accident for years and decades to come.  And yet at the same time, I’m not reading much about actual nuclear solutions except for the spin that nukes don’t emit CO2 greenhouse gasses / so this industry is OK, safe, sound, fiscal, necessary and not to worry.  I’m really tryin’ hard here Kit, just like the Germans and the Swiss – “Don’t Worry, Be Happy!”

    -Mark

    [link]      
  9. By carbonbridge on October 18, 2011 at 8:04 pm

    Alex said:

    Why would you do biomass -> pyroil -> refining -> fuel, with the additional process step and the refining losses, if you could do biomass -> FT -> fuel?


     

    Good question here Alex.  Most folks reading this particular post [about shorting KiOR stock] would have NO clue as to what you are asking.

    Keep in mind that there are more than just one type of FT [Hitler's scientist's alternative synthetic gasoline, jet & diesel] fuel – not everything therein from a similar FT GTL process is a hydro-cracked long chain paraffin derivative.

    -Mark

    [link]      
  10. By Kit P on October 18, 2011 at 8:58 pm

    “we see and breathe as brown urban smog. ”

     

    Where? Mark, if you check your facts, US air quality is good.

    http://airnow.gov/

     

    It fine if Mark enjoys drama but when it comes to fixing problems, the first step to see if there is a problem.

     

    “That missing Oxygen atom which I keep lecturing about ”

     

    What compound are you marking Mark? When people will not tell you in common terms what they are doing, it is just marketing.

     

    “how much of these rads we can absorb before we cripple and die…  ”

     

    Gosh Mark if you were really concerned you would know the answer. That is the difference between engineering and drama.

     

    Most will be killed by 450 rem without medical treatment. Standing next the destroyed core at Chernobyl for 10 minutes would cause that kind of exposure. With medical treatment, people have survived 10 times that exposure.

     

    However, Mark was not at Chernobyl. He got what I got, zero exposure.

     

    Mark labeled his cartoon ‘Chernobyl Rad USA’ but got zero exposure from this too because he was not born yet. Mark’s mislabeld cartoon is for ‘US fallout exposure’ from surface bomb testing during the cold war.

    US fallout exposure

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N…..ar_fallout

     

    I got zero too. Over a ten year period that is.

     

    Mark is having a drama over harmless levels of radiation near or below background if you were withing 20 miles of the reactor. Farther away, the amount is very much lower that background.

     

    [link]      
  11. By Kit P on October 19, 2011 at 10:40 am

    Once is a mistake, twice in bold letters is telling a lie.

     

    “thyroid cancer incidence”

     

    That is not what wiki says.

     

    “U.S. Thyroid Cancers Map ”

     

    It is not a cancer map, it is a dose map. There is no reason to think that such low doses over 10 years would cause a detectable increase in thyroid cancer.

     

    “I’d mistakenly interpreted ”

     

    You might consider that in the future. If there is a consistent pattern of saying stuff that is wrong, it is reasonable that you can not discern the truth. When you use that information to call other dishonest, Mark it is fair game to say you are telling a lie. It is still a lie even if you found it on the internet.

     

    “map from Google IMAGES ”

     

    Mark keeps digging,

    “Just like your statement ”

     

    I wore a dosimeter that measured my exposure. I got a few mrem from background and going in the nuke plant I worked at. If you lived in the US you got zero too.

     

    “How could you make such a statement like this Kit?  ”

     

    Bad assumption, I assumed somebody about my age would be wiser. Can I assume that although you were exposed to a higher level you did not get thyroid cancer? Boggyman!

     

    Mark if you do not think you have a drama about ‘CHERNOBYL’ go back and read your post. It is not even your drama.

     

    “Let it go Kit. ”

     

    Mark stop posting a hysterical hissy fit of misinformation and I will.

     

    The bottom line Mark is that we work very hard at not exposing you to any radiation. We have containment buildings and systems to filter out I-131. We new before ‘CHERNOBYL’ that exposing children to I-131 caused thyroid cancer.

     

    If I had to put a label on Mark, it would be Colorado communist wing nut. Correct me if I am wrong. These people failed to notice that the USSR was not a workers paradise that protected the environment but an evil corrupt society with no regard for the life of their children or the environment.

     

    “I’m not reading much about actual nuclear solutions ”

     

    I suspect you never even looked. Sorry Mark if you did not read something it is your own fault.

     

    If Mark had bothered, he would find out that standards in the west protect children. Even after severe damage to three cores, children were not exposed to significant levels of I-131.

     

    “safe, sound, fiscal, ”

     

    Again Mark, if you look at the record; 104 US nuke plants produce 20% of our electric power. It is the lowest cost base load source. It has a perfect safety record for never hurting anyone. Forty year old plants are running better thatn when they were new.

     

    [link]      
  12. By Walt on October 20, 2011 at 9:40 am

     

    I watched this program last night on PBS.  It was so sad all the families that were effected and how over 160 entire communities (men, women, children, all their business and family farms) were totally destroyed.  This was an excellent video as it discussed before and after the event, and how what was once families living in these communities now are radioactive wolves.  I would encourage everyone to watch it so they can see the effects of nuclear disasters on entire nations…and large areas of lands that become radioactive.

    Families are destroyed and radioactive wolves take over!  Get your families ready for the next accident just waiting to happen.

    http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature…..ison/7134/

    ————————-

    Chernobyl’s Radioactive Wolves

    There have been massive increases in large carnivores in the nuclear
    wasteland around Chernobyl creating a complete ecosystem and one of
    Europe’s largest wildlife sanctuaries – and yet it’s radioactive. Where
    humans can’t live, nature is rebounding and somewhere in this vast
    nuclear wilderness, there are packs of radioactive wolves, living in an
    archaic structure that has vanished from other parts of Europe. Here
    they can thrive, here they can live like real wolves in large packs as
    they used to. Before 1986, the zone was heavily farmed and populated,
    and wolves were scarce. In less than 25 years there are an estimated
    300+ wolves making the most of this deceptively beautiful landscape. But
    are these they mutants? Have they been affected by nuclear
    contamination after the 1986 explosion which released 100 times more
    radio-nuclides than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined?

     

    [link]      
  13. By Walt on October 20, 2011 at 9:43 am

     

    “Chernobyl is widely considered to be the worst nuclear plant accident in
    history. The meltdown was given the highest rating on the International
    Nuclear Event Scale, Level 7. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in
    2011 is the only other event to receive a Level 7 rating. Twenty-five
    years after the Chernobyl disaster, radiation levels continue to be
    unsafe in areas surrounding the plant, and meltdown-related
    environmental and health effects in the region persist.”

     

    While some would send children and families right back into the heart of the contamination zone (which is widening) to “test” the human effects, the results of Chernobyl is a wake up call for those who do not want to go back into the radiation filled areas of Fukushima Daichi nuclear disaster.

    [link]      
  14. By Walt on October 20, 2011 at 9:50 am

    CarbonBridge said:

    Let it go Kit.  Nuke problems are daily news on this crowded planet, I don’t consider nukes to be harmless AND there will be something else popping up tomorrow and someone may comment on it.  Personally, I expect to be exposed to a lot more info about the Fukushima accident for years and decades to come.  And yet at the same time, I’m not reading much about actual nuclear solutions except for the spin that nukes don’t emit CO2 greenhouse gasses / so this industry is OK, safe, sound, fiscal, necessary and not to worry.  I’m really tryin’ hard here Kit, just like the Germans and the Swiss – “Don’t Worry, Be Happy!”

    -Mark


     

    Mark,

     

    Those pictures are the most disturbing.  Think of all those children whose lives are destroyed while propoganda nuke supports tell their families to go back into these zones that everything is all fine.  Clearly, the effects do not happen immediately which is why the propoganda machine tells people it is no problem, go back into the zone with your families, and eat the animals, the fruits, the crops, etc.  Only years later do you see the results of that ill advice from the Nuke industry.

     

    [link]      
  15. By rrapier on October 20, 2011 at 9:45 pm

    Walt said:

    Kit P said:

    I have taken the time to address the concerns of both Mark and Walt but I do not think they care what I think.


     

    BINGO!  I did hear that loud and clear.


     

    Kit is done here. For a while I feel like he has been playing a game to see just how far he could push it before he got banned. He has been banned from multiple boards before, and people have asked me to ban him for a long time. I am pretty tolerant, but his clown act got old.

    Thus, don’t feel like you need to respond to anything he writes as I will delete it as soon as I see it.

    RR

    [link]      
  16. By Walt on October 20, 2011 at 8:58 pm

    Kit P said:

    I have taken the time to address the concerns of both Mark and Walt but I do not think they care what I think.


     

    BINGO!  I did hear that loud and clear.

    [link]      
  17. By Walt on October 21, 2011 at 1:01 am

    Robert Rapier said:

    Walt said:

    Kit P said:

    I have taken the time to address the concerns of both Mark and Walt but I do not think they care what I think.


     

    BINGO!  I did hear that loud and clear.


     

    Kit is done here. For a while I feel like he has been playing a game to see just how far he could push it before he got banned. He has been banned from multiple boards before, and people have asked me to ban him for a long time. I am pretty tolerant, but his clown act got old.

    Thus, don’t feel like you need to respond to anything he writes as I will delete it as soon as I see it.

    RR


     

    Happy to comply.

    [link]      
  18. By carbonbridge on October 27, 2011 at 10:08 pm

    Robert Rapier said:

    Kit is done here.

    RR


     

    OT:  This discussion of “Why I Didn’t Short KiOR” got sidetracked over to Fukushima when I’d posted a news item last week from Peak Oil Journal.  Then Kit P and I got sideways once again over nukes.  Same Peak Oil Journal today references another timely article on Fukushima.  So I went searching.  This is a very detailed picture of where what kinds of radiation from this Japanese nuclear accident went.  It will be hard to interpret by most folks, yet there are several colored slides which depict some elements of global geography contaminated by radiation released from three core meltdowns.

    Looking a bit further, I located a 5 minute YouTube vid which works to explain this same technical study to the layman and concerned citizen.  After getting into the pro/con of nuke plants earlier in this thread with Kit, – the data herein published only two days ago is timely – especially for those interested and concerned enough to evaluate it.  So sharing the urls below.  Good night…

     

    “A new study posted for open peer-review suggests that the nuclear reactors at Fukushima Daiichi released far more radiation than the Japanese government initially estimated. The study [PDF] uses global radioisotope and meteorological data to calculate the size of the release from the plant. Nature News reports that, contrary to official claims, the model shows that fuel being stored in a pool at unit 4 released a significant amount of cesium-137, a long-lived contaminant that has spread across the countryside. It also says that some Xenon-133 may have been released early on in the accident, suggesting that the plant was already damaged before it was hit by a tsunami. Overall, it estimates that Fukushima released about twice as much cesium-137 as the government claims and half as much as Chernobyl.”

    Xenon-133 and caesium-137 releases into the atmosphere from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant: determination of the source term, atmospheric dispersion, and deposition.  Authors are:  A. Stohl, P. Seibert, G. Wotawa, D. Arnold, J. F. Burkhart, S. Eckhardt, C. Tapia, A. Vargas, and T. J. Yasunari

     

    http://ehsmanager.blogspot.com…..ought.html  

    From the URL above, download an illustrated pdf document of 6,457 KB published October 25th, 2011

    Also:  A 5-minute vid at YouTube is an overview of this very technical and detailed study. This vid helps interpret the data to the layman.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..6vo_fP1OF4

    Fukushima Major Important Study 10/25/11‬ – 5-minute vid

    [link]      
Register or log in now to save your comments and get priority moderation!