Theoretically, the wind power available in the atmosphere is much greater than current world energy consumption, so the growth prospects are virtually unlimited.  Generous government subsidies and lower wind turbine prices will open a new bull market in wind stocks.

This from Investment U:

The Obama administration has made a big deal about renewable energy. Over the next several years, the new President has plans to spend roughly $150 billion promoting and enabling its growth. And with $700 billion flowing from the United States into OPEC’s pockets every year, I don’t think you’ll get much of an argument from anyone about the timeliness or the need for renewables.

But even with massive amounts of capital investment – and widespread adoption by utilities and end users – renewable energy will still only account for roughly 10% of world energy output by 2030, an increase of only three percentage points from today’s estimated 7% contribution. Depending on whom you talk to, however, that estimate is wildly optimistic.

The stark reality of worldwide energy production is a dirty, four-letter word: coal. Since the beginning of the 21st century, its worldwide consumption has outpaced any other fuel source, growing nearly 5% per year. This, too, in the face of prices that have escalated every year since 2000.

Consider 97% of that growth has occurred in emerging market countries, most notably China and India. They’ve respectively accounted for 66% and 19% of the total increase.

To keep up with the demand, world coal production is projected to increase by nearly 60% by 2030. Every major coal producing country will see huge increases in its coal output: China will almost double its output, India’s will more than double and Russia’s will rise almost 75%.

What about reserves… is there enough coal out there to meet this huge increase in consumption? The answer is yes. World reserves are more than adequate, with China, Russia and the United States accounting for 60% of them.

Presently, China’s a net exporter of coal, but that will change in a year or two. By 2030, China will be importing 88 million tons of the black rock a year. India will be importing a staggering 220 million tons per year, overtaking Europe to become the second-largest importer.

All this is of great benefit to U.S. coal producers, who have seen their exports surge nearly 45% in 2008 alone. They will continue to see increasing exports of coal to China, India and other emerging market countries.

Large investments will be needed on the prospecting side – to identify economically viable deposits – and on the mining side to develop new projects once identified. Total investment in coal-supply infrastructure is expected to be $730 billion through 2030, with 91% of that going to mine development and mining equipment, and the rest for port expansions and shipping upgrades.

Mining Coal’s Profits

The safest direct coal play is the Market Vectors Coal ETF (NYSE:KOL), which tracks the performance of the Stowe Coal Index. This gives investors a means of tracking the overall performance of companies engaged in the coal industry. This is a relatively new ETF and it gives investors exposure to the major players in the industry including:

• Arch Coal (NYSE:ACI) – One of the largest coal producers in the United States.
• Peabody Energy (NYSE:BTU) – The largest private sector coal company in the world, with majority interests in 31 coal operations located throughout the United States and Australia.
• Bucyrus International, Inc. (Nasdaq:BUCY) – A world leader in above and sub-surface mining equipment.

Another safe coal bet is Joy Global, Inc. (Nasdaq:JOYG) – essentially a carbon copy of Bucyrus. Joy’s wholly owned China Mining Machinery subsidiary recently acquired Wuxi Shengda, a Chinese manufacturer of long wall shearing machines used in underground mining operations in China.

Speaking of China, the second-largest coal producer in China, Yanzhou Coal Mining Company (NYSE:YZC), owns eight working mines – including one in Australia – with many others under construction. The seven working mainland mines have almost two billion tons of proven reserves. That’s enough to run China’s power plants for five-and-a-half years.

Of course the negative aspects of increased coal usage are increased greenhouse gas generation. Right now coal is responsible for 42% of greenhouse gasses emitted worldwide. The International Energy Agency estimates that will increase to 46% by 2030, even with aggressive implementation of new carbon capture and storage technology.

Coal is a dirty four-letter word when it comes to energy generation. And unfortunately, even under the best-case scenario, the world will have to depend on it for years to come. Investors would be wise to consider some form of exposure to coal as part of a well-balanced energy and infrastructure portfolio.

Source: Renewable Energy Reality: Coal

Slowing growth and inflation problems means the short-term outlook for commodities is not pretty. But over the long term, scarcity of resources is strongly bullish for commodities prices.

This is a great chance to add commodities stocks to you your portfolio and hold for long-term profits.

This from Chris in Penny Sleuth:

Jeremy Grantham heads up GMO, a respected money manager. Grantham has been largely spot on in the big-picture sense of staying bearish on stocks for the last eight years or so. He is bullish long-term on commodities. In his latest quarterly letter, Grantham makes some good points about the future of commodities and emerging markets.

His conclusion first: “In the short term, slowing world economic growth combines with credit, currency and inflation problems to dominate the outlook and offer poor prospects for emerging markets and commodities. Longer term, the reverse is true, and they look like the assets to own.”

It is mostly the long term (looking out a couple of years) that interests me, although I obviously don’t aim to step into any immediate problems if I can help it.

Longer-term backing for commodities demand comes from two sources, Grantham says:

The first is that if enough people enter economic take-off at approximately the same time, as 2.3 billion Chinese and Indians have now done, then the pressure on resources might happen to increase marginal costs slightly faster than technology could offset them.

This has already happened. It’s why the price of oil, for example, is so much higher than historical averages. All that demand hits very quickly, but it takes time to bring new supply to market. In the interim, higher prices result.

This seems well-known already. Most investors realize that behind the commodities boom stands surging demand from countries such as China — former ‘runts’ now muscling in on the global dinner table.

The second reason is more interesting. Grantham believes that the global growth spurt has come at the expense of eating away at some hard-to-replace resources:

“Underground water resources that currently sustain some of our most productive land but, like a metronome, tick off a reduction of several feet each year; rain-fed waters that, although renewable, are finite and already so overused that previously valuable lakes retreat to sometimes disastrous local effects and river volumes, once seemingly limitless, are now fought over; subsoil, which took thousands of years to form, is depleted through casual use (in the Midwest, for every bushel of wheat produced, it is said that a bushel of subsoil is lost. Our farmers are in the mining business! Yes, the soil is incredibly deep, but it is still finite); high-grade mineral ores are fully developed, the very best are long gone and all are irreplaceable; previously fertile land has often been overgrazed and turned into desert.”

At Mayer’s Special Situations, we’ve been on the water beat since this publication began in summer 2006. We’ve also watched the agricultural boom unfold, and we’ve picked up nice profits along the way. We are, in fact, still invested in these ideas.

Along with these ideas, oil, natural gas and base metals all have become more difficult and expensive to produce. Recently, we’ve had to sit through a pretty tough correction on the commodity names. Stocks in these sectors have sold off in a big way this summer, as I’ve noted. Based purely on fundamentals, though, these stocks haven’t looked this cheap in years.

But short term, such drawdowns are common on the way to eventual higher prices. Grantham, too, says as much:

“The prices of commodities are likely to crack short term, but this will be just a tease. In the next decades, the prices of all future raw materials will be priced as just what they are: irreplaceable. Oil, for example, will never again be priced on the marginal cost of pumping a marginal barrel from some giant Saudi oil field, as has been the practice for most of the last 100 years of oil production. Real cost is always replacement cost, and oil, a precious feedstock for chemicals and fertilizers, simply cannot be replaced.”

I don’t take as hard a plumb line as old Grantham does. I believe there is, even now, lots of room for innovation and replacement. Oil, for example, is replaceable in a broad sense. We can get energy from a broad array of sources. But it’s not an easy or painless transition.

Slowing economic growth is the bigger issue. That’s problematic for most commodities, short term. The market, though, is probably punishing the commodity companies too severely. That creates some interesting opportunities.

You can more easily pick up stocks trading for discounts to readily ascertainable net asset values now than anytime in the last five years, in my view.

It doesn’t mean making money in commodities is a lock or that it will be easy. Lots can go wrong with individual companies, and the drawdowns will probably be more than most investors can stomach. But longer term, looking out a few years, I think an investor will be happy with the portfolio assembled in the doubtful summer days of 2008.

Source: Vancouver’s Laboring Drunks

Byron King in Energy and Oil looks at the reasons behind the TNK-BP dispute:

The Kremlin has invested heavily in Russia’s image as an energy superpower. During the recent Russian Victory Day celebrations on May 9, many commentators referred to Russia’s energy sector as one of the key elements of Russian power. Energy took a top billing, right along with Russia’s traditional military might and still-potent nuclear capabilities.

Russian leaders have pledged to continue increasing the country’s output to meet rising demand, especially in Asia. The first foreign trip by incoming Russian president Dimitri Medvedev was to China, where he made numerous announcements about energy cooperation between Russia and the Middle Kingdom.

But many experts have long pointed out that Russia’s petroleum industry is working under serious constraints:

Most Russian oil fields were discovered in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. During those energy-rich times, the then-Soviet developers skipped over all but the largest deposits. Later on, the smaller fields were developed, but these fields cannot make up for the fading giants of the past. New discoveries of any size are quite rare, even in the vastness of Russia.

Much of the equipment and technology in the Russian oil patch is outdated. In recent years, Russia has imported large amounts of Western equipment. Russia has also brought in Western personnel to help maintain oil output. Western oil service firms like Schlumberger and Baker Hughes have a large presence in Russia.

The private parties who acquired many energy Russian assets after the collapse of the Soviet Union made little in the way of long term investment. All along, there was serious doubt about the sanctity or security of the property rights these tycoons acquired in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet state. Hence there was a “boom” mentality that led to rapid exploitation of the easiest resources, with little thought for the long term.

The Russian government imposes confiscatory levels of taxation on the oil industry, with some marginal rates approaching 90%. Thus the high world prices for oil benefit the Russian treasury, but leave little in the hands of oil developers for new investment.

Despite all of this, Russian oil output has been growing at impressive rates for the past ten years or so — in the nature of 5% to 10% per year in some years. But in 2008 that growth has stopped abruptly. Output figures have actually reversed. In absolute erms, Russian oil output is down in the first four months of 2008. Russia may have reached its own “Peak Oil” point, much as the US did in 1970. This has grave implications for the growth of the Russian energy sector, and the larger Russian economy.

If Russian oil output has peaked, we can expect new kinds of both rhetoric and behavior from Russia in its domestic policies, as well as in its dealings with other nations. In all cases, you can expect to see Russia pursue its own security and national interests with a strong hand, if not with a vengeance.

“Is Britain going back to the 1970s?” asks Ben Traynor in Fleet Street Daily.

I was 14 when I first learned about the 1970s oil price shocks, and how they had caused stagflation (unemployment and inflation rising at the same time) in Britain.

In a nutshell, here’s what I was taught: the higher cost of oil meant Britain had to pay more for its fuel. This represented a transfer of wealth from oil importers like the UK to oil exporters like the OPEC nations.

Unfortunately it took time for people to cotton onto this. They saw their cost of living rising, and wanted to be paid more. Unions threatened to strike if they didn’t get their way. The government tried to stimulate growth in the economy, hoping this would make the problems simply go away. But they didn’t.

All that happened is we got inflation — nature’s way of forcing us to buy less when we refuse to accept that we’re poorer.

Britain entered a wage-price spiral, which fuelled higher inflation. Eventually we had to be bailed out by the International Monetary Fund.

By the end of the decade, Britain had both high inflation and high unemployment (usually the two are inversely related).

I realise this is a somewhat simplistic précis. Economic history is far more nuanced than this. Nevertheless, the broad strokes of this story made sense to me as a 14-year-old.

And they still do. Which is why it was heartening to hear that JCT seems to share my view of what went wrong in the 1970s:

“In the first oil shock, we took wrong decisions and embarked on second round effects and tried a high level of inflation for a long period of time,” he said.

“We created by our own absence of lucidity mass unemployment in Europe when before 1974 we had no mass unemployment. Price stability, and credibility in price stability, in the medium term, is the best way to have a high level of sustainable growth and sustainable job creation.”

Indeed, it was the lure of sustainable growth and sustainable job creation that led Gordon Brown to grant operational independence to the Bank of England in 1997, his very first act as Chancellor.

But there’s evidence that the Bank is losing the “credibility in price stability” battle. Inflation expectations are on the rise; the FT today writes that investors are more sceptical of the Bank’s ability to tackle inflation than at any time since it gained independence.

The Bank only has itself to blame. It has cut interest rates this year despite the fact that inflationary pressures are rising. Its reasons for doing so are understandable — Britain’s economy is on the rocks.

But that doesn’t change the fact that fighting inflation should be the Bank’s number one priority.

The Bank isn’t helped by the fact that its inflation target is measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). CPI annual inflation was at 3.0% last month, right at the upper limit of the Bank’s target zone.

But we in Britain know full well that the prices of what we buy are going up more than that. Small wonder the Bank is losing the battle for hearts and minds.

If the Bank went all out and targeted inflation properly, we’d quickly feel poorer. But that’s the point — we are poorer.

Prices of commodities we buy are going up around the world. As both Trichet and my economic teacher would gladly tell you, this represents a transfer of wealth away from Britain to those countries exporting the stuff the world needs.

Ben gives some background on why prices are rising in Britain – in a word, inflation:

Inflation is the natural consequence of a weak currency. The principal reason for this is that a weak currency makes imports more expensive. This is exactly what’s happening in Britain – everything from food to energy is getting dearer. If the ECB puts its rates up, more money will head into the euro, further weakening the pound. Unless… unless the Bank of England also raises rates. Truth be told, the Bank should raise rates anyway. At July’s meeting they should announce a rise of 0.5% at least.

Not that they will. Because today we have yet more ‘bad data’ from the housing market. House prices are falling twice as fast as they did in the early nineties. According to the Halifax, house prices fell by 2.4% last month, to add to the 1.3% fall we had in April and the 2.5% fall in March.

Since January, the average house is worth 6.6% less. That works out at a not-too-clever £13,000 (Yesterday, Theo took an in-depth look at the housing market, calculating housing’s “P/E ratio”)

So an interest rate megahike is unlikely. But one thing is certain – the Bank of England can’t save the housing market. So it shouldn’t try.

Predictions time! When can we expect rates to start rising? For July, I reckon the Bank will stay put, leaving rates at 5%. Of course, that all depends on a) how much deflationary data we get this month, and how much the Bank can stomach, and b) whether or not the politicians try to meddle, and how successful they are if they do.

Milton Friedman once wrote that inflation is a problem because the more volatile prices are, the less efficient is the price mechanism. Because no-one knows what’s going on.

As he put it: “The broadcast about relative prices is, as it were, being jammed by the noise coming from the inflation broadcast”.

By August I think that noise will become too loud for the Bank to ignore. And then we’ll see some action (though probably only of the quarter-point variety; they’re cautious, these central bankers).

From our perspective, then, it’s as you were. Little succour in sight for the UK economy. But a possible chink of light that the Bank may, by hook or by crook, soon begin to start taking inflation seriously.

The Guara exploration well struck oil in the BM-S-9 concession area – the same block as September’s Carioca discovery, which could contain as many as 33 billion barrels of oil.

“There are those who will tell you that oil is a cyclical business and a global fungible commodity,” says Christian DeHaemer in Taipan Daily.

It rises and falls with the business phase. If you look at a hundred-year chart, it is as obvious as a sidewinder on a sand dune. A sine wave through time — up and down in seven-year cycles.

But there are others who believe in the “Peak Oil” argument, the ultimate end-game, like a Suburban crushing a Subaru at the end of a long hill. Peak Oil enthusiasts will point to long lists of numbers, detailed maps of known reserves, past prognosticators of genius, and declare with tinfoil-hat fervor that “we are running out of oil.”

I’ve read these books and listened to the speeches. The idea that there is a finite amount of oil on the planet, and we are near the point where we will extract less in the next hundred years than we did in the past. Makes sense to me, as does the business cycle. I don’t know if the hundred-year history of the oil cycle is over. There is always a “this time it’s different” ideology at the peak. But then again, sometimes, it is different.

What we do know — what isn’t in dispute — is that oil is expensive, and that by all accounts the easy oil has already been found and is being extracted at a furious pace.

And this has led the industrial countries on a desperate search for this ever-scarcer commodity.

Russia, China, India, Brazil, Canada, Europe and the U.S. are fighting an anxious and diminishing struggle for the last of the world’s hydrocarbons. Russia is sending submarines to plant national flags at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean. China has moved aggressively to acquire oil holdings from Kazakhstan to Somalia. India has gotten in bed with the genocidal regime of the Sudan to the tune a $45 billion natural gas pipeline. The U.S. is spending trillions in treasury and thousands in lives to make sure the oil flows from the Middle East.

The Guardian of UK fame recently reported that “money is no object as the big players grab what is left of a diminishing resource.” (This was after China’s Sinopec paid $1 billion for the right to explore for oil in deep water off Angola.) Just a few years ago, such a deal would have sold for a mere $35 million. But competition is fierce over the last remaining frontiers where vast quantities of oil might be found.

Martin Spring in Money Morning UK reports on another Brazilian energy find:

The newly-discovered Sugar Loaf field under the Atlantic off Brazil, claimed to be one of the world’s biggest, is primarily a natural gas resource. The Shtokman development in the Barents Sea off Russia’s Arctic coast, and several projects off the coast of north-west Australia, focus on production of gas, not oil.

There is also increasing interest in exploiting hard-rock resources that have been neglected in the past because it’s difficult to tap their gas. On the western slopes of the US Rockies, Exxon Mobil is starting to employ an explosive fracturing technique three times more effective than conventional technology to unlock the riches of the Piceance Basin.

“As the post-Memorial Day hangover lingers, and $4 per gallon gasoline becomes a national reality, expect more and more daily energy prognostications,” says William Patalon III in Money Morning.

“Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) already is on record for $200-a-barrel oil. As you all know, our own Keith Fitz-Gerald has projected a crude-oil price of $225 a barrel. Do I hear $250? What about $5 a gallon gasoline by July 4th?

“Sometimes, these daily price gyrations take on lives of their own, but at the end of the day, the basic laws of supply and demand always work themselves out.”

There’s a new oil rush going on in Alberta, Canada, says Alex Green in InvestmentU: “Alberta’s oil sands are the largest known reserve of oil on earth containing between 1.7 and 2.5 trillion barrels.”

“For decades, these sands weren’t even considered part of the world’s oil reserves because the oil there wasn’t economically extractable at prevailing prices using then-current technology. But times have changed… And the new gold rush is on.

“Here’s the kicker: Exploration of Alberta’s oil sands is virtually risk-free. You can’t drill a dry hole here. There’s no drilling at all. It’s a mining operation – and the reserves are thoroughly outlined. So what you really need is a company with plenty of machinery, money and manpower to dig it up and process it as quickly as possible.”

Read on here to find out the one undisputed blue-chip play on Alberta’s oil sands.

Biofuels can boost incomes and yields for farmers, revitalizing impoverished rural areas when they are introduced in countries with secure land ownership, the International Institute for Environment and Development said.

By raising the price of crops such as corn and palm oil, biofuels can reduce poverty in countries with a high dependency on agriculture, the London-based researcher said in a report with the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization.

“Despite the highly polarized debate, biofuels are not all good or bad,” lead author Lorenzo Cotula of the IIED wrote in the report. “Biofuels can either help or harm the world’s poor depending on the choice of crop and cropping system, the business model, and the local context and policies.”

“Ethanol stocks were moving higher for a while,” says Charles Delvalle in Investor’s Daily Edge, “but have gone down since the middle of last year (maybe investors are catching on to how ‘not green’ ethanol really is). Geothermal producers are shooting higher. And those who sell wind turbines are making great money on increasing orders.

“By 2030, Morgan Stanley expects green sales across the globe to total over $1 trillion (that’s bigger than the Gross Domestic Product of 169 of the 181 member countries of the International Monetary Fund!). Most people I speak to see green technology as the wave of the future. It’ll only be a matter of time until they think that investing in green companies is a no-brainer.

“In the end, this whole green movement we see today could very well be the start of yet another massive bubble. And considering the riches that were made during the two previous bubbles, catching the green investment mania early on would be a great way to make a lot of coin in the next few years.”

Chris Mayer in The Daily Reckoning reckons it’s time to consider investing in an essential biofuel ingredient: sulfuric acid.

“The biofuel boom has kicked off a big increase in the demand for sulfuric acid. In fact, some 60% of the sulfuric acid ends up in agriculture. The surge in ethanol production is a double whammy on sulfuric acid. First, all that corn needs fertilizers. And second, the ethanol facilities themselves also use sulfuric acid in their own processing. A typical ethanol facility requires 2,000-4,000 tons of sulfuric acid per year.”