Just as an FYI, the definition of an "accredited investor" is not Mosaic's - it's the SEC's.
John Street- the REIT structure will not directly help with the tax equity shortage, but it might provide enough low cost capital that solar developments would be economic without tax equity. This would have the added advantage of easing solar off its reliance on the ITC.
Dave Fisher- In this election, we have a very sharp contrast between candidates in terms of their stated policies on climate change and energy. Romney intends to do nothing about climate change and reverse much of what Obama has done because he considers it 'too expensive.' Obama will continue making incremental progress to support energy efficiency and renewable energy. While it would be nice if we could expect more than continued incrementalism from Obama, anything more will be ruled out by opposition in Congress, and it's a heck of a lot better than going into reverse. For me, climate change is the most important issue we face, so the choice is clear. I also think Obama will be better for the economy and the stock market, because the massive spending cuts Romney plans would throw the country back into recession.
I guess that means that you think Zipcar's model does not make sense, either? Generation Ys are increasingly not owning cars... you might consider that car ownership may have been right for older generations, but not necessarily for the future. Glad you love your Volts, though, they are wonderful cars.... just not appropriate for the Chinese middle class.
Kandi vehicles are also for sale to the public, there is no 'prevention of ownership.' I don't dismiss the Volt because of low sales numbers so far... I dismiss them because they are not a cost effective form of transportation. They should do fine in the less price sensitive segments of the market, but battery technology and gas prices are not yet to the point where EVs can compete in price-sensitive parts of the auto market when compared to traditional hybrid technology. I hope that economic problem will be overcome soon, and full size EVs like the Leaf and Volt will become mass market vehicles in the US on both rental and ownership models. Until then, I thank people like you for subsidizing the technology's development.
My statement on the cost effectiveness of EVs is based on my own sums. Only very frequent driving and charging, under most scenarios 2+ charge cycles a day, can make EVs cost competitive with similar hybrid models. That does not mean no one should buy them, but if your budget is limited, you'll do a lot more to reduce your environmental impact by getting a small, high mpg hybrid or diesel, and spending your savings insulating your home or adding PV.
If you have all the money in the world to spend, why not donate it to Obama's reelection campaign- Romney is certain to do a lot more harm to the environment than we could offset with a million EVs.
Your Kiplinger quote bears out what I have to say; the Volt costs more than the Cruze and the Leaf costs more than the Versa. And those are not even the best comparisons. Why not compare to the Chevy Cruze Eco?
My car can use renewable energy, too. It runs on biodiesel.
I do use biodiesel when I can get it (which has much lower environmental impact than ethanol) but it still has many drawbacks, of which I'm well aware. One of those drawbacks is that biodiesel is not cost-effective, just like the Volt. But for someone like myself, who drives very little, it makes more sense to use an expensive fuel than an expensive vehicle as a way to further reduce my environmental impact. It's too bad you're not aware (or even willing to consider) the drawbacks of EVs. Driving less and using smaller vehicles are the best option to reduce the impact of your transportation. Integrating small EVs into a public transportation system like China is doing seems a far better (if not perfect) solution than either straight biofuels or EVs, which is why I like Kandi as an EV investment... which was the point of the article, after all.
Clint - I only follow public companies, but the same logic that I applied to the public companies would apply to private companies as well. The problem is, they don't disclose financial information, so it will be hard to know if they have strong balance sheets.
The companies have not yet published prices, so the numbers you (and I) want are not available.
I think there is some active promotion of "geothermal" on the part of the industry, for the simple reason that it sells better. A Geoexchange system may work the same way as a geothermal system, but it does not sell nearly as well. It's all about branding. As for why I use "geothermal" in my articles: Same reason- it gets me more readers.
Peter, I think your suggestion is a step backwards. My current terminology "Geothermal Heat Pump" and "Geothermal Power" are sufficiently distinct that I don't think readers will get confused, while "Low temperature geothermal or geoexchange" is excessively wordy. If we leave out "Geoexchange" it could easily be confused with geothermal power or space heating using low temperature (but not ambient) resources, i.e. 100F- 200F.