Oil Major Total Buys Texas Solar Projects

[Crissa]

Go back and read my post. Technology and engineers are what you buy when you buy a company.

Go back and read mine. The article specifically says they're buying already deployed solar arrays and companies that produce solar arrays.

-Crissa

 

[FullyGrounded]

Any time one company wants to buy ALL of anything I'm concerned. peace

 

[DarinCT]

The Paris-based multinational has pledged billions in renewables investment, targeted net-zero emissions by 2050 and proposed renaming the company TotalEnergies, which its shareholders will vote on in May.

However, “there is a bubble” in the renewables sector, Pouyanné cautioned. Valuations that are often up to 25 times earnings are “just crazy today”, the Total chief added, putting that down to the short supply of assets of a significant scale. They are “too scarce”.

This is fascinating and unfortunate. According to the Total CEO, the prices of the renewable projects that they seek are actually going up while consumer installs and production prices are going down. However much I think individual solar is a great thing, having major energy companies do MW projects will move the renewable needle even more. Unfortunately, the economics don't encourage the investment.

 

[cary1219]

and companies that produce solar arrays.

-Crissa

We're saying the same thing, but for some reason you think it's bad. Along with those production companies comes valuable technology.

 

[MEDICALJMP]

Any time one company wants to buy ALL of anything I'm concerned. peace

That statement is illogical for so many reasons.

 

[FullyGrounded]

That statement is illogical for so many reasons.

If they buy it all, the monopoly is established. There are reasons that monopolies are illegal - Monetary control, lack of competition to establish fair prices, and many others beyond. peace

 

[Luke42]

Go back and read my post. Technology and engineers are what you buy when you buy a company.

What you're describing is an acqui-hire.

Acqui-hires are common in the IT industry, but that's far from the only reason to buy a company in the broader economy.

Sometimes you want their customers, sometimes you want their engineers, and sometimes you want their factory. Sometimes it's something else entirely.

Acqui-hires are a subset of corporate acquisitions, not the whole topic.

 

[Luke42]

That statement is illogical for so many reasons.

What he means is that he's concerned when he sees companies trying to build monopoly power.

That's a very sensible concern because free markets aren't so free when there's a high degree of monopoly power.

 

[MEDICALJMP]

What he means is that he's concerned when he sees companies trying to build monopoly power.

That's a very sensible concern because free markets aren't so free when there's a high degree of monopoly power.

Monopolies, bad. Agreed. Otherwise I can show many examples of a company buying all of another and it being beneficial to all. Think Berkshire Hathaway.

 

[Quicksilver]

Any time one company wants to buy ALL of anything I'm concerned. peace

While I was in college working on my Communications degree I wrote a paper for one of my classes about the railroads and how they were like the DOT COM businesses that sprang up when the computer age took off.

After the first transcontinental railroad was built railroad fever took the US by storm.

Anyone could form a railroad corporation and sell shares to investors. In many instances the newly formed company would hire surveyors, lay out a route and maybe put down some track and then the con artists would abscond with the investors funds.

Even when some small railroads were built most of them never made much, if any, money. They ended up being swallowed up by the bigger railroads that were making money. These bigger companies eventually got the government to subsidize the unprofitable railroads. When the subsidizes stopped the big companies shut down the small railroads and eventually abandoned the routes or sold them to short line companies if they still had customer bases.

And government intervention is a double edged sword too. When people quit taking the train and moved to airlines or personal vehicles the government got into the railroad business via AMTRAK on the assumption that passenger rail service should be continued even if there was no profit in it.

When I was stationed in Germany I loved riding the trains. They were fast, dependable and cheap to ride. Somehow we were never able to get it right and AMTRAK is still subsidized by the government. Passenger trains do not have priority over freight trains and rates can be high depending on how comfortable you want to be on the train.

For years the major railroads, owned by rich people, had a monopoly and charged whatever they wanted to ship products. The government eventually stepped in, set rates (via the Interstate Commerce Commission) and forced some of the big companies to break into smaller companies.

The same thing happened to the phone companies (remember "Ma Bell).

I see some parallels with the Alternative Energy industry. There has been fraud committed to get subsidies and many start ups failed even if they had good products and intentions.

I want AE to succeed but allowing one company to rule the roost will never be a good idea no matter what the product or supposed benefits to "we the people".

 

[Crissa]

We're saying the same thing, but for some reason you think it's bad.

No, I'm saying that drives up the price. There are only so many companies.

But if they were making new ones, that would reduce the price.

Like why Tesla builds new factories instead of complaining that the price of buying existing factories has gone up.

-Crissa

 

[cary1219]

There are reasons that monopolies are illegal

While your point is well taken, monopolies are not illegal. Abusing the monopoly is what is illegal.

 

[FullyGrounded]

While your point is well taken, monopolies are not illegal. Abusing the monopoly is what is illegal.

The Sherman Antitrust Act
This Act outlaws all contracts, combinations, and conspiracies that unreasonably restrain interstate and foreign trade. ... The Sherman Act also makes it a crime to monopolize any part of interstate commerce.Jan 5, 2017

http://www.justice.gov

I don't just speak out of my butt. I tend to know something when I make a statement. peace

 

[firsttruck]

What you're describing is an acqui-hire.

Acqui-hires are common in the IT industry, but that's far from the only reason to buy a company in the broader economy.

Sometimes you want their customers, sometimes you want their engineers, and sometimes you want their factory. Sometimes it's something else entirely.

Acqui-hires are a subset of corporate acquisitions, not the whole topic.

And sometimes they buy company to kill a technology/product/version of product or slow adoption of a technology/product/version of product.

Microsoft did this several times.

General Motors & fossil fuel companies controlled large format NiMH battery patents & prevented NiMH use for making EVs.


I think anti-trust laws should be used to stop Aramco, BP, Shell, Exon, Total, or their shills from buying companies & technology so they can slow adoption of the move to renewables, zero tailpipe emissions vehicles, carbon free energy.

Fossil fuel backed sources has huge investments in Lucid. I do not think they really want Lucid to succeed. They want it to fail so investors become afraid of investing in EV startups.

 

[Crissa]

'Unreasonably' is doing heavy lifting there. The mere presence of a monopoly doesn't mean it's unreasonable.

-Crissa