Baltimore — (TFN): Sometimes you just know it is going to be a rough couple of days. As you read this, my soft-hearted, pregnant wife is recovering from a fairly significant surgery. That alone is enough to raise the blood pressure.

But at the same time my better half is asking for a stronger morphine drip, the weatherman is calling for a foot of snow. And worse yet, the phone is ringing off the hook with long-time friends wanting to take advantage of perfect waterfowl hunting conditions.

I think we all know where my obligations lie, but it is going to be real hard to be sitting in that duck blind, knowing my wife could use some help.

Just kidding. I’m off to the hospital.

In the meantime, I’ve asked for some additional assistance for today’s issue of notes. With Obama touching down in Copenhagen, I think you will like it.

Dr. Marc Bustin is an editor at Casey’s Energy Report. When he is no writing for the popular service, he’s a professor of petroleum and coal geology at the University of British Columbia.

Like I said, you will enjoy what he has to say. Here it is:

“Over the last couple of years, consideration of the effect of climate change has become increasingly important in analyzing a company or market trend — particularly in the energy sector.

“For example, our very bearish view on the thermal coal producers in North America is due exclusively to the high levels of carbon dioxide that coal-fired power plants generate, and the widely held belief that these emissions contribute to global warming.

“As researchers who like to chase down facts, we know that credible scientists continue to debate whether and how much humans really do contribute to global warming. However, it’s the rare politician who acknowledges this controversy.

“Instead, they join the herd of scientists and pseudo-scientists who tend to cherry pick among the findings to fit their preconceived conclusions. An unfortunate state of affairs, but, alas, a consequential one, because these same politicians are awfully fond of regulation — and they’re becoming more so.

“So it’s not surprising that we are on course for a real mess in terms of government regulations concerning carbon emissions, taxes, tariffs, and such. Detrimental results are likely for certain sectors of the economy, such as the oil and coal sectors and associated refiners, heavy industry, and the transportation sector.

“As a scientist, I currently accept the near-unequivocal evidence that Earth is in a warming spell, but I also know that in past geological times, there have been many such periods of warming and cooling. I remain on the fence as to what impact anthropogenic (human-sponsored) emissions are having on the global trend.
“Perhaps more importantly, at some level I am haunted by the belief that even if we are responsible for global warming, we are too late, and there is nothing we can do about it.

“Pragmatically, our job at Casey is to point our subscribers toward prudent investments, and it is pretty clear that there is opportunity and danger in industry that is regulated, subsidized, and penalized by government.

“It’s also clear we are just now at the beginning of what will be pronounced government intervention — for example, the U.S. House of Representatives bill (H.R.2454) aimed at reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 17% from 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% by 2050.

“The bill allows tariffs on carbon-intensive goods (such as steel, cement, paper, and glass) if they are produced in countries the United States judges to be shirking their responsibility in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

“Herein lies the problem, even if you believe cutting emissions will make a difference: the new big greenhouse gas emitters (i.e., China, whose growing use of coal recently pushed it to the #1 spot in greenhouse emissions, with India rushing to catch up) must curb their emissions… but in doing so, they will be denied the standard of living that in theory those of us who screwed up the atmosphere in the first place enjoy.

“This is hypocritical, and the hypocrisy is not lost on the developing nations. That’s why I think that global accords on emissions are not going to work.

“Going forward, I see the impact of climate change regulations – tariffs, taxes on emissions, subsidies, carbon credits, and carbon trading – becoming a major factor in not only the energy sector but also the associated technology sector. And since governments tend to be rather fickle and make decisions that defy logic, our job at Casey Research has gotten that much more titillating.

“Every month, we’ll bring you analysis of everything that’s pulling at the energy sector — logic-defying governments included —in Casey’s Energy Report. With a subscription, you’ll also get Casey’s Energy Opportunities and, until December 18, a free subscription to Casey’s Extraordinary Technology. To top it off, you get all this at 40% off the regular price and with a no-risk 90-day trial. Click here to learn more — and be sure to do it before or on December 18!”

*** For next week, keep an eye on the dollar and especially gold. After yesterday’s mega-drop, the precious metal is precariously close to my prescribed buying range. Now that the bears managed to shake off the “commoners,” it’s time to re-evaluate the value of gold.

We’ll tackle the subject in depth over the next few days.

Eugene S. Takle, a professor of atmospheric science at Iowa State University, and the director of the school’s “climate science initiative,” says the research study concluded that U.S. wind strength has potentially declined by 15% to 30% during the past 30 years – an average decline of as much as 1% a year.

While conducting the study – which will appear in the Journal of Geophysical Research – researchers reviewed wind data taken at airports around the United States, and then based their findings on two sets of figures: One set from 1973-2000, and the other from 1973-2005.

The study concluded that three factors could be contributing to the declines in U.S. wind strength: Land-use changes, a changing climate and changes in the kind of instruments used to measure the wind, Takle told MarketWatch.com.

“If there have been trees growing or new buildings constructed near airports, it could impact the speed of winds on airports,” Takle said. However, it is also “[basic] meteorology that the wind is driven by differences in temperature between the poles and the equator, and those differences have been narrowed by climate change.”

Tough Timing

The findings come at time when the United States is making a serious push to increase the amount of electricity that’s generated by wind turbines grouped into so-called wind-power “farms.” Attempts to harness the wind are part of a broader national – or even global – commitment to “green” energy sources as a way of reducing dependence on oil and other fossil fuels for power generation.

Other power sources include solar, geothermal, hydroelectric and nuclear for commercial electricity production, while automakers are looking at new types of batteries and such innovations as power-storing “fuel cells” as alternatives to the conventional internal combustion engines that power most of the world’s cars and trucks.

The objectives are twofold. By decreasing the U.S. reliance on foreign oil, the country is hedging against the time when global supplies of the “black gold” begin to dry up, an eventuality that will propel the prices of crude and gasoline skyward. Diversifying away from oil and, perhaps, even coal is also a way of reversing – or at least slowing – environmentally ruinous (and politically controversial) global warming.

President Barack Obama is attempting to use the ongoing financial crisis to create a sense of urgency about America’s energy future, a challenge that no prior administration has yet been able to meet.

About one-third of President Obama’s $800 billion-plus stimulus packagewill go to infrastructure, with $30 billion allocated for U.S. roads and highways and another $10 billion earmarked for railways and mass-transit systems.

President Obama has also proposed spending $150 billion “over the next 10 years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.” The administration also proposes to increase the amount of electricity that comes from renewable resources from 10% in 2012 to 25% by 2025,Wall Street 24/7 reported in early January.

Creating the power is only part of the problem. Delivering it will be a challenge, too, especially given the country’s aging power grid. Upgrading that aging equipment is expected to cost more than $880 billion, according to a November 2008 report from the Brattle Group.

An Energy Boon For Entrepreneur T. Boone?

In many cases, those federal outlays will serve only as seed capital. It will likely fall to innovators in the U.S. private sector to really energize the alternative-power market.

One key player is legendary oilman and venture capitalist T. Boone Pickens, who has unveiled a plan to cut U.S. dependence on foreign oil through the power of alternatives such as wind and natural gas, Money Morning reported last July.

“We’re paying $700 billion a year for foreign oil. It’s breaking us as a nation,” Pickens said at the time. Former U.S. President Richard M. Nixon “said in 1970 that we were importing 20% of our oil and that by 1980 it would be 0%. That didn’t happen. It went to 42% in 1991 with the Gulf War. It’s just under 70% now. Where do you think we’re going to be in 10 years when our economy is busted and we’re importing 80% of our oil?”

Pickens wants to create what he calls a “bridge to the future” that will help cut slash the U.S. reliance on imported foreign oil by focusing on two specific alternatives:

• Cars that burn natural gas instead of gasoline.
• And electricity generated by wind power.

There’s a smooth and elegant logic to his strategy: By constructing electric-generating wind-power farms, the United States can free up natural gas supplies that currently generate 22% of the nation’s electricity. That natural gas can then be used to power cleaner-burning cars and trucks, thereby reducing our dependence on imported oil while also reducing the damage to the environment. This will also buy time for the development of other, even-greener, alternative sources of energy.

Pickens’ Wind Power Project

According to Pickens, wind power could eventually fulfill as much as 20% of the United States’ energy needs. Calling the Great Plains region of the United States the “Saudi Arabia of wind,” Pickens last summer launched plans for a $10 billion alternative energy project in the Texas panhandle that has the potential to one day become the world’s largest wind-power farm.

Picken’s Mesa Power LLP plans to purchase 667 wind turbines from U.S. industrial giant General Electric Co. (NYSE: GE). Each turbine can produce 1.5 megawatts of electricity – enough to provide the ongoing power needs of 360 to 600 U.S. homes, according to Money Morningcalculations based on statistics provided by Oregon Power Solutions Inc., a Baker City, OR consulting firm.

The first phase of the Pickens project, already under construction, will produce 1,000 megawatts of electricity, enough energy to power 300,000 homes. GE will begin delivering the turbines in 2010, and current plans call for the project to start producing power in 2011.

Ultimately, Mesa Power plans to have enough turbines to produce 4,000 megawatts of energy. Overall, the “Pampa Wind Mill” project is expected to cost $10 billion and be completed in 2014.

Pickens has launched a “Pickens Plan” Web site, which is urges the country’s “energy army” to lobby Congress for funding and a commitment to green-energy projects.

Other Players Showing Interest

An Irish company – its interest in the U.S. alternative energy market piqued by the green-technology money included in the Obama administration’s stimulus package – on Monday acquired three Illinois wind farms located within 100 miles of Chicago, The Chicago Tribunereported.

Plans call for the Dublin-based Mainstream Renewable Power to invest $1.69 billion over four years to develop the wind farms. The purchase price was not disclosed.

“The U.S. market is of strategic importance to Mainstream, and the scale of the opportunity is strongly reflected in President Obama’s economic stimulus package, which includes $56 billion in grants and tax breaks for U.S. clean energy projects over the next 10 years and a budget of $15 billion a year to fund renewable energy programs,” Mainstream co-founder and Chief Executive Officer Eddie O’Connor said in a statement. “The administration’s goal of generating 25% of the nation’s electricity from renewable energy sources by 2025 will help revitalize the U.S. economy and protect consumers.”

The farms have the potential to generate 787 megawatts of electricity by 2013, The Tribune said. The most advanced is the 120-megawatt Shady Oaks project in Lee County. When finished next year, it should be able to generate enough electricity to power about 30,000 homes, Mainstream said.

The other two wind-power farms are the 467-megawatt Green River project, also in Lee County, and a 200-megawatt project set for Boone County. Construction on the Green River project will begin next year, while the Boone County project is still in is development stages.

This is Mainstream’s second North American deal in three months; it earlier announced a Canadian wind farm project. It has also announced plans to build a wind farm in Chile.

Founded a year ago, Mainstream was created to build and operate wind-energy, solar-thermal and ocean-current power plants in partnerships with government agencies, electric utilities, developers and investors in North and South America, Europe, and South Africa. Barclays Capital (NYSE ADR: BCS) has a 14.6% stake in Mainstream.

Going Global

As Mainstream’s proposed forays into South America, Europe and Africa demonstrate, the push to harness the wind isn’t limited to the United States.

As of the end of last year, worldwide wind-powered generators were capable of generating 121.2 gigawatts (GW) of electricity. Wind power produces about 1.5% of the world’s electricity and its use is surging: The amount of electricity generated by wind power doubled between 2005 and 2008 alone.

Several countries have already embraced wind power in a major way: As of last year, it accounted for 19% of electricity production in Denmark, 11% in both Spain and Portugal and an estimated 7% in both Germany and Ireland. As of this May, 80 nations around the world were using wind power on a commercial basis.

Not surprisingly, China is making a big push to commercialize wind power and by last year was already the world’s sixth-largest user of wind-generated electricity. The country’s largest manufacturer of wind turbines - Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology Co. Ltd. – went public last year, raising nearly $250 million. It has about 33% of China’s wind-power-equipment market, according to KGI Securities Co. Ltd., a Taiwan investment-banking and brokerage firm.

“As China’s wind power sector takes off, we think Goldwind is well positioned to become a major beneficiary, thanks to its strong brand and first mover advantage,” KGI wrote in a research report.

Not a Complete Answer

Although wind power has substantial promise, it’s not an infallible energy solution, and has some serious limitations – as the U.S. wind-power study shows. For one thing, although an estimated 72 terawatts of wind power on Earth can be potentially commercially viable – an amount that’s six times the estimated 15 terawatts of total power usage on earth – not all the wind energy flowing past any given point can be recovered.

Accoridng to a science axiom known as Betz’s Law – named for the German physicist,  Albert Betz, who discovered the rule in 1919 - no turbine can capture more than 59.3% of the potential energy in wind.

And there are other challenges, some of which are caused by the natural lay of the land in a given location. In the United States, for instance, where there are now concerns about diminishing wind strength, some coastal areas may retain wind strength because of the greater temperature differences between the land and the ocean.

Given the growing importance of wind power, more study will be required.

Concludes the study: “Given the importance of the wind-energy industry to meeting federal and state mandates for increased use of renewable energy supplies and the impact of changing wind regimes on a variety of other industries and physical processes, further research on wind climate variability and evolution is required.”

Source: U.S. Ramping Up Wind Power Programs Even As Concerns Surface About Possible Declines In U.S. Wind Strength

“Prepare for the onslaught of relatively inexpensive Chinese turbines,” said Steve Sawyer, head of the Global Wind Energy Council, in Wired magazine.

In 2007, China became the world’s number one producer of photo-voltaic cells, holding 35% of the market. Sawyer reckons that China will make enough equipment to generate 10 gigawatts of power annually by 2010 — more than half the capacity that the whole world installed in 2007. More from that story:

China has three big reasons for jumping feetfirst into the carbon fight. Obviously, there’s the threat of climate change — flooding in China’s coastal cities, drought in the country’s interior. Second, there’s political instability: Air and water pollution is already a flash point for public protests. And then there’s the burgeoning export market for green products stamped made in china.

Will renovating the planet spur the first wave of homegrown Chinese tech innovation? Jeff Immelt, CEO of General Electric, thinks so. “China has as much or more at stake than anyone,” he said at a recent corporate summit. “Solar energy, carbon sequestration — we’re going to be blown away by China’s progress over the next couple of decades.” If only they could clean up Beijing’s air in time for the summer Olympics.

Jason Simpkins is bullish on nuclear power as a solution to the world’s energy needs. “If coal is the short-term solution to the world’s energy needs, uranium is the long-term play,” says Jason in Money Morning.

“That said, it’s also become clear that – with the enhancements to plant design and operation – commercial nuclear energy is the safest, cleanest, cheapest source of the massive amounts of electricity that will be needed to achieve three key objectives: 1) To fuel global growth; 2)To avoid a worldwide energy crisis; and 3) To battle the long-term environmental effects of global warming.”

In this week’s Outside the Box we continue with what I mentioned a few weeks ago: agricultural needs are going to be a new and important force in the world and when coupled with energy may shift the balance of power in the world in strange a different ways.

When, as Niels points out, Afghanistan poppy farmers are shifting to wheat farming, the world is truly a different place. I think you will find the research he has done to be truly worth a few minutes of your thinking time.

And as a preface, I was reminded a little while ago that a Financial Times headline story last Friday mentioned that China is buying African farmland and building massive amounts of railroads and infrastructure to get grains to the market. I have long been bullish on African farmland. This week’s OTB will tell you why.

“There is nothing so disastrous as a rational investment policy in an irrational world,” John Maynard Keynes. You just know that something is astray when Afghan poppy growers begin to switch from opium to wheat.

According to the Independent newspaper here in the UK, that’s exactly what is now happening. I have no desire to enter into a pound for pound risk/reward analysis of producing wheat versus opium. However, the consequences of the rapid rise in energy and agricultural commodity prices are far reaching and perhaps not as well understood as they should be. That is the content of this month’s letter.

The Silent Tsunami

My story begins with Al Gore. While most of us lulled ourselves into the belief that he was onto something when he tried to convince us that global warming (or climate change, as I prefer to call it) was the most formidable challenge facing this planet, a silent tsunami¹, also known as the global food crisis, began to develop and is now threatening to undermine global political and economic stability, the latter of which has been key to the benign financial markets we have all benefited from in recent years.

According to the World Bank, just over 1 billion people live on one dollar or less per day. People in the poorest countries in the world spend 80% of their income on food. So when you and I have hardly noticed that the bread we pick up from the local bakery has doubled in price over the past year, it is because only 10-15% of our budget is spent on food items². In many emerging economies the number is much higher. Chinese consumers spend 28% of their income on food. In India it is 33%. If you want to know how much it is in your country, go to:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/cpifoodandexpenditures/data/2006table97.htm.

There are three food staples in the world today which dwarf all other food ingredients in terms of importance. They are (in alphabetical order) corn, rice and wheat. As you can see from chart 1 below, they have all experienced rapid price appreciation since last summer. What is it that has driven this price explosion and what does it mean to financial markets? As with most things in life, there is no simple explanation; a number of factors have conspired to create a situation which is exceptional but also destabilising and hence dangerous.

It Is The Bio-Fuel Policy Stupid!

The explanation given by most commentators is the bio-fuel policy currently being pursued by the Bush administration in Washington. The policy is driven by a desire to unlock the United States from its rising dependence on imported crude oil. The problem, as Bush and his government have been slow to recognise, is the stupidity of the policy in its current form. Let’s back that claim up with some hard facts.

In the United States, corn (better known as maize over there) is the primary ingredient in ethanol production although wheat and soybeans are also used. According to a recent UN report, it takes 232 kg of corn to fill an average 50 litre car tank with ethanol – enough corn to feed a child for an entire year. It is estimated that almost 20% of total US corn production will go towards ethanol this year and the number is set to rise to 45% by 2015³.

The problem with corn is that it is low on carbon hydrates, which is where the energy comes from. Instead, American ethanol producers rely heavily on fertilisers with the energy being extracted from the nitrogen in the fertiliser. This is an inefficient and very costly approach – in particular in an environment of rising energy prices because crude oil and/or natural gas are major ingredients in fertiliser production. 33,000 cubic feet of natural gas are required to produce just 1 ton of ammonia!

So what does all this mean? According to estimates from Goldman Sachs, the cost of ethanol from corn is now over $80 per barrel, it is about $145 from wheat and over $230 from soybeans. Other countries recognised this problem a long time ago and use crops with higher carbon hydrate content. In the Philippines they use coconut oil and the Brazilians use sugar cane. Goldman reckons that the cost of one barrel of ethanol based on sugar cane is about $35. So why not import sugar cane from Brazil instead of using corn? One simple answer: Brazilian farmers do not vote at American elections. Idaho farmers do.

Are Investors To Blame?

There is no question that the US bio-fuel policy which, by the way, is now being copied in other parts of the world including the EU, has to take its share of the blame. But it is by no means the only reason for the food crisis. The next culprit on my list is our very own industry – investors of all kinds. In recent years there has been rising demand for commodity-linked investment products from investors all over the world. Pension funds, hedge funds, mutual funds and private investors have all allocated more and more to commodities and, in recent months, demand growth has been explosive, as is evident from chart 2 below. It is estimated that the aggregate value of commodity-linked index funds now exceeds $200 billion, a very significant number in a not very large market.