Bloom Energy Corp (BE)

[now invest]

Hope you are enjoying this ride!!!! I am!!! $4.20 now!!

[Clemdane]

Believe me, I am not listening to them. I own Bloom and D*NR and I've been looking at L&PI, A&R, and EC&A. The latter two have had massive insider buying (A*R in March and May, and EC*A in March, May, June, August, September, November.)

[now invest]

NIce up 7% so far today!!!!! ??

[now invest]

Not everybody!!! Raymond James saying it is an outperform with a $12 target!!!!!!!! So I listen more to them than SHORT SELLERS!!! And I am already up !! $6 would make me happy!!!!!

[Clemdane]

Me too. And everyone's saying to get out of the energy sector right now. Pah!

[now invest]

Liking how BE is starting to get interest...... RJ has it as an outperform with a target of 12!!!!!!!!!!! Half that would be nice!! IMO!!

[56Chevy]

The power grid + high winds & weather are increasingly becoming an issue. Power utility companies, and those especially on the west coast, have seen what happened with PG&E in the wake of the Camp fire lawsuits and subsequent bankruptcy are shutting down power to millions of customers at any hint of wind. So? So power company lawyers all across the country see the writting on the wall..expect weather related blackouts to be coming to a theater near you soon.

Californans are finding out they cannot have it both ways..the problem is you can't convince them of that. They live in a dream world..but I digress.

NatGas fuel cells are gridless..which in my mind is becoming more attracive by the day.

Stocks of company's manufacturing stand alone power generating equipment have soared the past few years and are now at all time highs.

It is becoming increasingly obvious our nations power grid must go the way of Henry Fords' model T..and for a host of reasons. Affordability, scalability and implementation will determine the winners of the race to become gridless imo.

Marker:
Bloom Energy Corpora (BE)
2.96 up 0.2 (9.63%)
Volume: 2,815,966

[ClayTrader]

* * $BE Video Chart 10-10-2019 * *

Link to Video - click here to watch the technical chart video

[canada tommy]

Agreed. They are immoral and propaganda artists.

[now invest]

New buyer here..... after reading what Raymond James had to say after that report..... I see a shot here to double my money...... or more!! They kept their outperform rating.... forgot right now but their target is either 11 or 12 ....... so for me they are a better source for research!! Good luck!!

[XenaLives]

Anyone who calls themselves "Hindenburg research" doesn't take themselves seriously, so why should anyone else?

[56Chevy]

That article failed to mention Hindenburg Research is a known short seller of stocks. It is common practice now for short sellers of this type to do what is known as a "short and distort". Keep in mind splashy and calculated public trashings by short sellers is merely opinion and not a verdict. Nevertheless accusations of this type can do irrepairable damage to a stock..which is exactly what a short and distort is intended to do.

*Short selling is not illegal and my comments are my opinion only.

Marker:
Bloom Energy Corpora (BE)
3.31 down -0.88 (-21.00%)
Volume: 11,162,493

[Jack E]

Bloom Energy issued the following statement in response to a report published today by Hindenberg Research, titled “Bloom Energy: A “Clean” Energy Darling Wilting to its Demise”.
“The authors of the research note did not engage with Bloom Energy to validate the assertions made in their report. We strongly disagree with the conclusions drawn. In particular, the service replacement liability mentioned in the report is grossly misleading. Bloom Energy will make a further statement on this topic in due course.”

http://pdf.reuters.com/htmlnews/htmlnews.asp?i=43059c3bf0e37541&u=urn:newsml:reuters.com:20190917:nBwbkybdKa

[56Chevy]

Marker:
Bloom Energy Corpora (BE)
3.265 down -0.925 (-22.08%)
Volume: 4,432,002

*BE hits new alltime low.

[56Chevy]

Marker:
Bloom Energy Corpora (BE)
$5.20 up 0.64 (14.04%)
Volume: 1,486,430

[XenaLives]

Your questions weren't yes or no questions.

I have a life..

I don't have to respond to your questions, I responded to the one that I thought was most significant.

Not clear on what your questions have to do with Bloom...

[56Chevy]

I'll take that as a no response to my questions.

Thanx...we're done here.

[XenaLives]

You ask - "Fair enough but tell me which of those goals do you feel are currently not being addressed by the O & G industry? "

State regulation is inadequate. If I can't breathe the rest of your questions don't matter too much to me. The methane needs to be captured instead of being discharged into the air.

I'm sure these issues are not unique to Colorado.

Colorado’s oil and gas industry has grown rapidly over the past two decades, largely due to the combination of new hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling techniques that allow companies to drill more than a mile deep and miles in every direction to break up deep shale formations that contain reservoirs of oil and natural gas. The technology has led to a transformation of the U.S. energy portfolio and enormous profits for many energy companies and governments that have reaped the benefits of this “shale revolution.” According to the state, Colorado’s “active well count” more than doubled from about 22,500 in 2002 to 53,102 currently.

Many laws governing oil and gas development were written before the new technologies prompted a proliferation of drilling along the Front Range, where atmospheric conditions contributed to poor air quality even before the current hydrocarbon boom.

Federal and state regulations generally were also written before scientists fully grasped the consequences on the climate from burning so many fossil fuels. A recent international report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that if humans do not significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions within about 12 years, Earth will warm enough to disrupt human societies and severely damage the planet’s ecological systems.

As drilling expanded and pollution worsened, pressure mounted for more stringent oversight. Four Colorado communities — Boulder, Broomfield, Lafayette and Fort Collins – passed bans on fracking in 2012 and 2013. Hickenlooper, a former oil and gas geologist whose promotion of the industry once took the form of publicly drinking fracking fluid to attest to its safety, opposed those local bans. A 2016 state Supreme Court ruling struck them down.

Facing criticism for being too lenient on the industry as he sought reelection in 2014, Hickenlooper proposed a set of regulations requiring oil and gas companies to install vapor-recovery tanks and other devices to capture emissions, to detect and repair leaks, and to report them to the state. The new rules aimed to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs – such as the cancer-causing chemical benzene – which have a number of health impacts from direct exposures. VOC emissions also combine with other chemicals and sunlight to create ozone, the main ingredient in smog. (See video: A scientist’s view)

The rules received much fanfare for also regulating emissions of methane, the main component of natural gas and a powerful heat-trapping gas that is contributing to global warming. No other state had such methane restrictions, which went far beyond what the EPA required.

At the time the state passed its oil and gas regulations in February 2014, health officials attributed 30% of methane and non-methane hydrocarbon pollution in the Denver area to the oil and gas industry. Some studies have attributed up to 55% of “ozone production potential” – the combination of the right chemical ingredients and the right atmospheric conditions needed to create smog – to oil and gas emissions along the northern Front Range. In Weld County, according to another study that surveys existing research, oil and gas contributes to 80% of “total point source VOC emissions,” key building blocks of the region’s smog problem. High ozone levels can lead to asthma and heart disease as well as other medical problems.

Colorado’s regulations are tougher than those in many other parts of the country, but, as in other states, these rules rely primarily upon industry self-reporting. In 2017, more than 17,000 methane leaks were identified by oil and gas companies, which is half as many as they reported in 2015. Industry officials say these numbers show an increased vigilance on the part of companies, which have an economic interest in capturing and selling the methane they produce.

But environmentalists and residents of Colorado’s increasingly active oil and gas patch say the fact that we have stronger rules than other states doesn’t necessarily mean those rules are effective, and evidence of various health impacts from fracking is growing.

At a recent presentation at the state’s Air Quality Control Commission meeting, members of an air quality task force heard from residents from around the state asking for tighter controls on oil and gas operations. Commissioners asked whether the industry was willing to embrace stricter rules right now. Attorney Sura responded in frustration that Colorado’s air quality has been so persistently bad precisely because policy makers have “only been willing to regulate if the industry approves it.”

“That’s not regulation,” he said.

Jeremy Nichols, the climate and energy program director for the environmental group WildEarth Guardians and an expert on oil and gas emissions regulations, said that Colorado’s frequently cited tough rules are “smoke and mirrors to cover up the extent of the ozone problem.”

“The state will say that they’re working cooperatively with industry to reduce emissions and that these violations are minor,” Nichols said. “The problem is, they say that for every violation, for every company, and every facility.” He echoes what others who have studied the regulations have concluded: Any system that relies so much on industry self-monitoring and reporting is rife for abuse.

Ben Marter, Colorado Petroleum Council spokesman, did not respond directly to a question about criticisms that Colorado’s self-reporting system may be flawed. Marter said in an email that the industry has a “legacy of environmental stewardship” that is “based on a transparent, collaborative process in which operators, state regulators and local officials work together” to develop regulations that are specific to Colorado.

The state’s efforts to independently confirm the emission levels reported by the industry and enforce regulations are severely hampered by chronic underfunding of both the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), which issues permits for companies to pollute. Jill Ryan, the department’s newly appointed director, told The Story Group that the CDPHE’s Air Pollution Inspection Division, in particular, “has been under-resourced for years, and maybe even decades.”

As oil and gas production has skyrocketed, CDPHE’s budget has failed to keep pace, averaging around $500 million a year over the last seven years, roughly $25 million of which goes to its Air Quality Control Division. That division’s oil and gas office has only nine inspectors who together make an average of 320 “full compliance evaluations” per year on the state’s more than 50,000 wells. Many of those inspections are scheduled, as opposed to unannounced.

For its part, the COGCC, which has seen its budget gradually increase over the last decade, has five field supervisors and 18 field staff who, as a team, inspect each active well in the state. Department of Natural Resources spokesman Chris Arend said the team conducts inspections of active well sites about once every two years.

The COGCC has made headlines over the past few years for its record of never having denied an oil and gas company a permit to drill. But the state public health agency is likely to come under increased scrutiny as well. State Sen. Mike Foote, an East Boulder County Democrat who long has championed oil and gas reform, said that lawmakers have “never paid much attention to CDPHE.”

“That will need to change,” Foote said.

Jeremy Murtaugh worked for 12 years as an inspector at CDPHE’s Air Pollution Control Division before resigning earlier this year out of frustration with the state’s lax approach to oil and gas companies. (See sidebar: A former Colorado air quality inspector speaks out.) He said that during “full compliance evaluations” of oil and gas operations, he and fellow state inspectors found violations about 25% to 30% of the time. In contrast, he notes, oil and gas companies’ comparable testing reports about their own operations find violations only about 5% of the time.

Murtaugh, in addition to a private contractor who monitors oil and gas facilities on behalf of companies and who did not want his name used out of concern that he would lose business, independently told The Story Group that they have observed occasions when oil and gas employees have adjusted their equipment to change the test results or contractors have been asked by companies to do so.

“It’s cheating, plain and simple,” said Murtaugh, who resigned after his bosses discovered he had taken documents he said he believed would protect him in a whistleblower action. He said he returned the documents, and none were used in this reporting. The Story Group spoke with several of Murtaugh’s former co-workers, all of whom described him as a committed and “professional” inspector.

Dan Haley, president of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, did not respond to allegations that some companies cover up their pollution violations by tinkering with their equipment and said in an email that the trade group could not “speculate about comments made by a former state employee.”

Garry Kaufman, director of the state’s Air Pollution Control Division at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, would not comment on personnel matters relating to Murtaugh. He said he has not seen an analysis of how often the industry self-reports violations compared to how often state inspectors do, but that Murtaugh’s numbers “sound a little surprising to me.” He added: “By and large, most of the operators try to get it right.”

Kaufman acknowledged that oil and gas companies have “operational staff” who generally are not as knowledgeable about regulatory issues as companies’ environmental compliance officers. “Sometimes, they’re not reporting things that should be reported.” If there are discrepancies between industry self-reports and inspectors’ reports, Kaufman said, “the division may address these inaccuracies through enforcement as well if deemed appropriate.” Kaufman also noted that there are many different kinds of operators and operations, from older, unmanned facilities to state-of-the-art multi-well pads, and each of them has multiple emissions sources for the division to track. “It’s a big challenge to find the right level of enforcement,” he said.

“The emissions are still too high, and it’s not a theoretical problem,” he said. “We need to do better and there’s a lot of political will to make that happen now.”

https://www.coloradoindependent.com/2019/04/16/colorado-fracking-rules-smog-methane/

[56Chevy]

Fair enough but tell me which of those goals do you feel are currently not being addressed by the O & G industry?

Keep in mind O & G is one of the most highly regulated industry's on planet earth. Are you aware of just how much it is regulated? Do you know how much that regulation adds to the cost of energy? At what point for you does cost play a role in the energy you consume?

What about energy independence...do you want the US to be reliant on foreign energy? ...or would you like to see us be totally self sufficient?

Is Natgas in your opinion the best "bridge" solution until better sources are developed? It can take decades if not century's to roll out new, safer, more reliable, environmentally sound technology and make it available AND affordable for the masses worldwide. If NatGas is not your bridge solution until better answers come along..what is? And when those solutions come along should the inventors and or developers make a profit from their product(s)? Or should it be free to everyone?

In your opinion should these new technologies come from the private sector..or the public sector?

Should you as a consumer have choices as to the energy you would like to use?..or should it be mandated by Gov't that everyone will use Energy X no substitutions..no choices? Is that the direction we as a people should go?

What guarantee's will you have that future energy sources (whatever they be) will fit every criteria you have? How will you know when your energy goals and ideals have been 100% met? And if they are not..what then?

What guarantees do you have that your future energy solutions won't accidently / unintentionally harm or even kill someone?..or maybe millions? Who should be blamed?

Surely youve thought about these things and I'm anxious to know your thoughts. TIA

Chevy

[XenaLives]

That and the emissions need to be controlled, worker safety needs to improve, and water usage must also be monitored and optimized.

[56Chevy]

Flagship Bangalore Real Estate Development to Showcase India’s Clean Electricity Future With Reliable Electric Power From Bloom Energy

Date : 08/29/2019 @ 9:00AM
Source : Business Wire
Stock : Bloom Energy Corporation (BE)
Quote : 4.48 0.3 (7.18%) @ 7:59PM

At the unveiling of Whitefield Tower clean energy project, technology and energy leaders come together to support and advance India’s transition to natural gas power

[....]

Source:
https://ih.advfn.com/stock-market/NYSE/bloom-energy-BE/stock-news/80626945/flagship-bangalore-real-estate-development-to-show

[56Chevy]

So if the wells aren't close to residential areas you're ok with NatGas?

[XenaLives]

People opposed to fracking close to their homes are not zealots.

Yes, they are politically motivated. Political action is their only tool to protect their homes and families against an industry that puts profit before safety.

A more complex issue than what you have represented:

A dozen fires and explosions at Colorado oil and gas facilities in 8 months since fatal blast in Firestone
New pipeline rules proposed but they don’t deal with fatalities from oil and gas industry fires and explosions.

By BRUCE FINLEY | [e-mail] | The Denver Post
PUBLISHED: December 6, 2017 at 7:51 pm | UPDATED: December 19, 2017 at 3:26 pm

At least a dozen explosions and fires have occurred along Colorado oil and gas industry pipelines in the eight months since two men were killed when a home blew up in Firestone, a Denver Post review of state records found. Two of those explosions killed workers.

The state has not taken any enforcement action in the April 17 Firestone deaths, saying there is no rule — and none is proposed — covering oil and gas industry accidents that lead to fatalities.

more...

denverpost.com/2017/12/06/colorado-oil-gas-explosions-since-firestone-explosion/

Fracking Colorado: Impact on environment and people
PART 1
By Viviana Weinstein posted on June 25, 2017

More and more towns all over Colorado are being affected by the negative impacts of fracking, including explosions, noise, dust, water contamination, injuries and deaths. The magnitude of the industrial drilling sites and the miles of horizontal underground pipelines that are unknown to builders and the population of growing towns are causing increasing safety problems.

“For years we have known that leaking underground pipes carrying oil and gas and processing waste regularly contaminate soil and water and potentially threaten thousands of people around the state, records show, “ wrote the Denver Post on May 17.

The process of fracking — hydraulic fracturing — involves drilling deep wells and injecting into them a mix of chemicals, sand and millions of gallons of water per well at high pressure. This splits the rock along fissures, allowing oil and gas to be released.

Fracking to obtain gas was introduced in Colorado in 1973, replacing earlier methods of extraction. By the early 1990s, such drilling was massive as companies became able to drill vertically and horizontally. Today it is possible to drill vertically as deep as five miles and then horizontally for five more miles. Colorado wells are usually two miles deep and two miles wide.

In a state concerned about having enough clean water for agriculture and for people to drink and use, the amount of water used in fracking is astounding. It requires 6 to 8 million gallons to frack one well. Each well can be fracked up to 18 times.

There are now 53,000 active and 36,500 inactive wells in Colorado and thousands of miles of pipeline. Many of these pipes are encased in cement, which crumbles over time. It wasn’t until 2016 that the state began monitoring underground pipes connected to wells, tanks and other equipment.

More...

https://www.workers.org/2017/06/25/fracking-colorado-impact-on-environment-and-people/

Impacts of Fracking
Air Pollution

Natural Gas Flare
Natural gas flares from a flare-head at the Orvis State well on the Evanson family farm in McKenzie County, North Dakota, east of Arnegard and west of Watford City.[creative commons]
Methane is a main component of natural gas and is 25 times more potent in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. A recent study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) monitoring gas wells in Weld County, Colorado, estimated that 4 percent of the methane produced by these wells is escaping into the atmosphere. NOAA scientists found the Weld County gas wells to be equal to the carbon emissions of 1-3 million cars.

A number of other air contaminants are released through the various drilling procedures, including construction and operation of the well site, transport of the materials and equipment, and disposal of the waste. Some of the pollutants released by drilling include: benzene, toluene, xylene and ethyl benzene (BTEX), particulate matter and dust, ground level ozone, or smog, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde and metals contained in diesel fuel combustion---with exposure to these pollutants known to cause short-term illness, cancer, organ damage, nervous system disorders and birth defects or even death .

The Associated press recently reported that Wyoming's air quality near rural drilling sites is worse than Los Angeles'--with Wyoming ozone levels recorded at 124 parts per billion compared to the worst air day of the year for Los Angeles, at 114 parts per billion. The Environmental Protection Agency's maximum healthy limit is 75 parts per billion.

Jonah Oil Fields
Oblique low-altitude aerial photo of wellpads, access roads, pipeline corridors and other natural-gas infrastructure in the Jonah Field of western Wyoming's upper Green River valley[creative commons]
A 2007 report prepared for the Western Governor's Association, that inventoried present and future nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions from oil and gas drilling in the west, projects Montana to experience a 310% increase in nitrogen oxide pollution (smog).

Crystalline silica, in the form of sand, can cause silicosis (an incurable but preventable lung disease) when inhaled by workers. Sand is a main ingredient used in the fracking process. The National Institute for Occupational Safety (NIOSH) collected air samples from 11 fracking sites around the country. All 11 sites exceeded relevant occupational health criteria for exposure to respirable crystalline silica. In 31% of the samples, silica concentrations exceeded the NIOSH exposure limit by a factor of 10, which means that even if workers were wearing proper respiratory equipment, they would not be adequately protected.

Excerpts from a very comprehensive article:

Impacts of Fracking - Air Pollution



Natural Gas Flare
Natural gas flares from a flare-head at the Orvis State well on the Evanson family farm in McKenzie County, North Dakota, east of Arnegard and west of Watford City.[creative commons]


Methane is a main component of natural gas and is 25 times more potent in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. A recent study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) monitoring gas wells in Weld County, Colorado, estimated that 4 percent of the methane produced by these wells is escaping into the atmosphere. NOAA scientists found the Weld County gas wells to be equal to the carbon emissions of 1-3 million cars.

A number of other air contaminants are released through the various drilling procedures, including construction and operation of the well site, transport of the materials and equipment, and disposal of the waste. Some of the pollutants released by drilling include: benzene, toluene, xylene and ethyl benzene (BTEX), particulate matter and dust, ground level ozone, or smog, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde and metals contained in diesel fuel combustion---with exposure to these pollutants known to cause short-term illness, cancer, organ damage, nervous system disorders and birth defects or even death .

The Associated press recently reported that Wyoming's air quality near rural drilling sites is worse than Los Angeles'--with Wyoming ozone levels recorded at 124 parts per billion compared to the worst air day of the year for Los Angeles, at 114 parts per billion. The Environmental Protection Agency's maximum healthy limit is 75 parts per billion.

Jonah Oil Fields
Oblique low-altitude aerial photo of wellpads, access roads, pipeline corridors and other natural-gas infrastructure in the Jonah Field of western Wyoming's upper Green River valley[creative commons]
A 2007 report prepared for the Western Governor's Association, that inventoried present and future nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions from oil and gas drilling in the west, projects Montana to experience a 310% increase in nitrogen oxide pollution (smog).

Crystalline silica, in the form of sand, can cause silicosis (an incurable but preventable lung disease) when inhaled by workers. Sand is a main ingredient used in the fracking process. The National Institute for Occupational Safety (NIOSH) collected air samples from 11 fracking sites around the country. All 11 sites exceeded relevant occupational health criteria for exposure to respirable crystalline silica. In 31% of the samples, silica concentrations exceeded the NIOSH exposure limit by a factor of 10, which means that even if workers were wearing proper respiratory equipment, they would not be adequately protected.

'''''

Health Effects of Fracking:
A 2011 article in the journal, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, examined the potential health impacts of oil and gas drilling in relation to the chemicals used during drilling, fracking, processing,and delivery of natural gas. The paper compiled a list of 632 chemicals (an incomplete list due to trade secrecy exemptions) identified from drilling operations throughout the U.S. Their research found that 75% of the chemicals could affect the skin, eyes,and other sensory organs, and the respiratory and gastrointestinal systems. Approximately 40–50% could affect the brain/nervous system, immune and cardiovascular systems, and the kidneys; 37% could affect the endocrine system; and 25% could cause cancer and mutations.

Health impacts from fracking are only now being examined by health experts, since such large-scale drilling is a recent phenomenon. Exposure to toxic chemicals even at low levels can cause tremendous harm to humans; the endocrine system is sensitive to chemical exposures measuring in parts-per-billions, or less. Nevertheless, many of the health risks from the toxins used during the fracking process do not express themselves immediately, and require studies looking into long-term health effects.

Despite the complexities of the on-site mixtures of chemicals and their specific contributions to health and environmental problems involved in fracking--conventional drilling practices are more old school and do have known health consequences. Researchers at the Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado, analyzed existing research of exposure to conventional petroleum hydrocarbons in occupational settings, and residences near refineries, in conjunction with known pollutants associated with fracking (nonconventional), in order to assess health risks to those residents living near fracking operations. Their basic conclusions were: the closer you live to drilling operations, the greater your health risk. Sounds obvious, but if you were to sue an oil company for the suspected killing a loved one via cancer, you would need a little more legal ammunition than "it just makes common sense" against an army of corporate lawyers.

Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has yet to investigate the potential impacts of fracking, the director of CDC's National Center for Environmental Health and the agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Christopher J. Portier, PhD, has called for health studies to be published.

A 2012 paper was published in the journal, Environmental Health Perspectives, examining the composition of state and federal advisory committees tasked to consider the potential environmental and health effects of fracking in the Marcellus shale region. The researchers found that there was not one health expert among the 52 people comprising the various state and federal commissions and boards, even though public health was specified in the executive orders creating the committees.

https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/health/case_studies/hydrofracking_w.html

[56Chevy]

Nationally - NatGas accounts for an average of 17 fatalities per year.

To put that in perspective in 2018 there were 20 direct lightning fatalities, up from 16 in 2017 which was lowest since record-keeping began in 1941. From 2009 to 2018 on average 27 people died each year from lightning strikes in the United States, according to the National Weather Service. Lightning strike deaths in Colorado average 3 per year.

About 240,000 people are injured by lightning strikes each year. One estimate is that the annual global death toll is 6,000.

NatGas can be dangerous yes..however other energy source proponents such as solar and wind have done a masterful job of demonizing NatGas in order to "sell" the publc on their technology. Both are plagued with peak demand limitations on a mass scale..i.e solar doesn't work at night ..and the wind doesnt always blow when you need it.

Think renewable energy sources are perfectLy safe? Think again. Workers in the solar energy industry are potentially exposed to a variety of serious hazards, such as arc flashes (which include arc flash burn and blast hazards), electric shock, falls, and thermal burn hazards that can cause injury and death.

Bloom fuel cells do not burn the NatGas to produce electricity. The "Camp Fire" was the deadliest and most destructive wildfire in California history. It is also the deadliest wildfire in the United States since the Cloquet fire in 1918 and is high on the list of the world's deadliest wildfires; it is the sixth-deadliest U.S. wildfire overall. Know what caused that fire? Faulty power-grid components. Bloom NatGas fuel cells require no powergrid. None. Zero. No unsightly high voltage towers criss-crossing the countryside. Can you imagine the cost savings, environmental impact and a world with no telephone poles! I can.

The Council on Foreign Relations released a report on the vulnerability of the U.S. power grid, and it pointed out the system's central role to America's economy and overall functioning of society. ... There were 2,975 deaths caused by the lost power grid, 46 times as many as the 64 who died in the actual hurricane.

You want something to worry about in Colorado - worry about real threats..not the threats generated by politically motivated activists with a blind bias against NatGas. I.e. zealots.

Need more? Ive got it.

[XenaLives]

Interesting observations - will have to cogitate..

I'm in Colorado where many perceive natural gas as the enemy because they are locating sites in residential areas and they do blow up and kill people from time to ime.

I wouldn't call the people concerned about this "zealots".

It's a scientific and PR challenge that those exploiting those resources in residential communities must project in a more convincing fashion. As someone living in the area, I am not a believer.

Natural gas as it is being exploited in my area IS THE ENEMY as I understand that.

So how does Bloom make this safer?

[56Chevy]

I have no expertise in fuel cell technology to judge the value of the patents. Overall I would think cranking out patents on a fairly regular basis is a good indication they are improving the technology at a rapid pace.

But I think their biggest hurdle is convincing the environmental community zealots that NatGas is NOT the enemy...which may prove to be a bridge too far for proponents of this type of technology. I personally have no problem with natgas as the fuel. I think the +'s outweigh the -'s.

Marker;
Bloom Energy Corpora (BE)
$4.6 up 0.42 (10.05%)
Volume: 1,283,111

[XenaLives]

Thanks, not being an engineering type I'm going to study that.

Which patents do you feel are most valuable, why?

[56Chevy]

Patents Assigned to Bloom Energy Corporation:

https://patents.justia.com/assignee/bloom-energy-corporation

Marker:
Bloom Energy Corpora (BE)
$4.66 down -0.01 (-0.21%)
Volume: 377,664

[XenaLives]

This is a serious question.. What IP does BE have that would give it a competitive advantage?

Still looking into this one, but not sure.

[ClayTrader]

* * $BE Video Chart 08-14-2019 * *

Link to Video - click here to watch the technical chart video

[@LiftedCapital]

ABSOLUTELY brilliant.

[56Chevy]

The headline should read:

Climate Change Zealots Aborting Fuel Cell Technology

"Green" will never be green enough for these people. What a shame..I think BE's technology is brilliant.

I have no interest in building a stake at this time.

Marker:
Bloom Energy Corpora (BE)
$4.60 down -3.4 (-42.50%)
Volume: 19,490,121

[stocktrademan]

BE buy 4.60




normal chart









log chart









normal chart








log chart

[@LiftedCapital]

-->> BE <-->> BOOOOM DIGGITY TOMORRA

[@LiftedCapital]

LOL NATURAL GAS BANNED IN BERKELEY??? THESE DMB FKS... OH WELL GOING IN TOMORROW AM FOR A SCALP LOL

[XenaLives]

This sheds some light on genuine issues:

A Clean Energy Producer Complains About Climate Change Laws
[Bloomberg]
David R. Baker
BloombergAugust 13, 2019


(Bloomberg) -- It’s not every day that a clean energy company complains about climate change laws. And yet, that’s exactly what fuel cell maker Bloom Energy Corp. is doing as its shares plummet to all-time lows.

Bloom executives, during a second-quarter earnings call late Monday, forecast flat revenue in 2020 and cast at least part of the blame on clean energy laws in California and New York, two of the company’s stronger markets. The laws -- committing the states to 100% carbon-free electricity by 2045 and 2040, respectively -- have confused Bloom customers and caused them to delay orders, said Chief Executive Officer K.R. Sridhar.

“Such objectives are well-intentioned but ill-informed,” he told analysts on the call. “There is no credible way to achieve a 100% renewables goal without compromising public safety, reliability, resiliency and affordability of power.”

The laws can be a problem for Bloom because its cells typically run on natural gas, although they can be configured to run on hydrogen or bio gas. When using natural gas, Bloom’s fuel cells do produce global warming emissions, but the emissions are lower than those from gas-burning turbines in standard power plants, according to the company.

Sridhar also took a shot at budding interest among cities -- such as Berkeley, California -- in banning natural gas from new buildings.

“It is wishful thinking,” he said.

Still, the confusion over the laws and the impact on Bloom should be temporary, Sridhar said.

The disappointing 2020 guidance prompted a half dozen analysts to slash their price targets. The stock plunged as much as 41% Tuesday, the most since the company’s 2018 initial public offering.

(Adds details on Bloom fuel cells’ greenhouse gas emissions in 4th paragraph.)

To contact the reporter on this story: David R. Baker in San Francisco at [e-mail]

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Lynn Doan at [e-mail], Millie Munshi, Steven Frank

For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com

©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/clean-energy-producer-complaining-climate-151948676.html?.tsrc=rss

[@LiftedCapital]

BE I WILL BE PLAYING TOMORROW

[XenaLives]

Bloom Energy stock rallies after narrower quarterly loss

Published: Aug 12, 2019 4:40 p.m. ET


CLAUDIA ASSIS
REPORTER

Shares of Bloom Energy Corp. BE, -37.22% rallied more than 13% in the extended session Monday after the clean-energy company narrowed its quarterly loss and reported revenue above Wall Street expectations. Bloom said it lost $62 million, or 55 cents a share, in the second quarter, compared with a loss of $46 million, or $4.34 a share, in the year-ago quarter. Adjusted for one-time items, Bloom lost 13 cents a share, compared with a loss of 27 cents a share a year ago. Revenue rose 38% to $234 million, compared with $169 million a year ago. Analysts polled by FactSet had expected a GAAP loss of 64 cents a share on sales of $208 million for the company. Bloom in July 2018 priced its initial public offering at $15 apiece.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bloom-energy-stock-rallies-after-narrower-quarterly-loss-2019-08-12

[XenaLives]

Looking at the case study tab at the link below, they have major clients.

https://www.bloomenergy.com/resources

[XenaLives]

Just starting to look into this - do you know if they have any unique IP?

[56Chevy]

Not sure what a "fuel cell" is? Here is a quick video that explains it;

[56Chevy]

Marker:
Bloom Energy Corpora (BE)
$5.12 down -2.88 (-36.00%)
Volume: 5,476,852

[XenaLives]

Shares of Bloom Energy Corp. (BE) plummeted 24% toward a record low in premarket trading Tuesday, after the company, which converts natural gas into electricity, warned that revenue growth and margins for 2020 may miss expectations. The stock's selloff is a reversal from a gain of as much as 15% in after-hours trading on Monday, after the company reported a narrower-than-expected second-quarter loss (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bloom-energy-stock-rallies-after-narrower-quarterly-loss-2019-08-12) and revenue that beat analyst estimates. Chief Executive K.R. Sridhar said on the post-earnings conference call with analysts that the move by some states to achieve 100% renewables-only power "are well-intentioned, but ill-informed," as there is no credible way to achieve that goal without compromising safety, reliability and affordability. But because of the "confusion," New York and California, the states the company has historically achieved its highest average selling prices, have slowed down conversion. "With fewer orders from those markets in our anticipated mix for 2020, our revenue growth and margins for next year may not be in line with Street expectations," Sridhar said. "We have high degree of confidence that this is an anomaly that'll correct and want to emphasize that we are bullish on these markets going forward." J.P. Morgan analyst Paul Coster reiterated his overweight rating, but slashed his price target to $18 from $33. The stock has plunged 39.4% over the past three months through Monday, while the S&P 500 has gained 2.5%.

-Tomi Kilgore; 415-439-6400; [e-mail]

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

August 13, 2019 09:29 ET (13:29 GMT)

Copyright (c) 2019 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

TDA news feed

[XenaLives]

Fuel-Cell Powered Microgrids Keep Home Depot Stores Open through New York Power Outages

Asim Hussain, Vice President, Commercial Strategy and Customer Experience, Bloom Energy
Tuesday, July 30, 2019

A heat wave and storms led to power outages that plunged hundreds of thousands of New York and New Jersey electricity customers into darkness last weekend. Airports in New York and New Jersey even grounded planes during the extreme weather.

Through it all, Home Depot stores in the New York area remained open thanks to clean, always-on power provided by Bloom Energy Servers.

Home Depot stores in Brooklyn, Halfmoon, Saratoga Springs and Amsterdam, New York experienced utility power outages of up to six hours. However, as each of these stores receives almost all of their power from Bloom fuel cells, and each of these power systems is capable of operating independently of the utility grid as a ‘microgrid’, each store was able to serve customers throughout the outages.

The borough of Brooklyn was hit particularly hard during the outage with the utility cutting power to 33,000 customers as usage spiked during the weekend heat wave. The power remained out for some customers until Monday afternoon.

The Brooklyn Home Depot store had its power cut three times, first for two short duration outages and then for roughly six hours. Bloom Energy Servers continued to power all business critical systems such as lighting, cooling, computers and cash registers as well as emergency systems such as exit signs, sprinkler systems and fire alarms.

The Home Depot stores in Halfmoon, Saratoga and Amsterdam have even more sophisticated microgrids which provided all of the critical power needs of each store during their outages, eliminating the need for back-up generators. The Saratoga and Amsterdam stores, for example, incorporate energy storage technology from PowerSecure, a subsidiary of Southern Company.

The fuel cell deployments in New York and elsewhere are part of Home Depot’s sustainability initiatives, and support the retailer’s goal to ensure that stores remain available to the communities they serve in the event of a natural disaster or grid power failure. The New York fuel cell deployments were enabled with the support of the New York Energy Research and Development Authority.

At the end of 2018, Home Depot had fuel cells operating outside 202 stores. Not only do these fuel cells, provide always-on reliable power, they also cut greenhouse gas emissions significantly – in some cases by 50% - compared to using traditional power sources.

Home Depot has long been a sustainability leader and its investments in fuel cells are part of a comprehensive sustainability effort across its 2,200 stores in the US, Canada and Mexico.

For example, Home Depot aims to derive 135MW of its energy needs from clean, alternative sources by 2020 including wind, solar and fuel cells. The company has additionally made investments in energy-efficient LED lighting and heating, air-conditioning and ventilation systems, reducing electricity consumption in U.S. stores by 26% compared to 2010 levels.

Last year, Bloom Energy microgrids helped customers continue to operate through more than 500 utility power outages.

https://www.bloomenergy.com/blog/fuel-cell-powered-microgrids-keep-home-depot-stores-open-through-new-york-power-outages

[BottomBounce]

$BE Bloom Energy Book Value Per Share (mrq) -0.78

[Philly68]

Got in @ $9.97 hope it takes off from here.

[BioInfo]

Horribly wrong. I cut my losses around $20

[Exitech]

How's That Working Out?

BE

[BioInfo]

BE (Bloom Energy) went public in July and now hit below its IPO price, while its losses were better than expected due to charges related to IPO.

Company with 25% of Fortune 100 companies its clients, sky is the limit. Wait for global exposure. I am long and will need to watch its lows as its entered uncharted territory