In the near term, we think the prospects for job growth look incredibly bleak. Banks aren’t lending. Companies aren’t hiring or investing heavily in R&D, and corporate profits are up only because of cost cutting measures, like layoffs, rather than bottom line revenue growth.

In the long term, however, certain industries look primed to blossom like plastics did in the 70s and semiconductors, personal PCs, and telecom did in the 80s and 90s. Barry Ritholtz at The Big Picture points out ten niche industries he thinks will fill in the gaps and push the world economy forward. Here are his top ten (listed in order of biggest near term potential.)

1. Nano Technology

2. Green Energy

3. Battery technology

4. Genomics/Stem Cell Research

5. Web 2.0/3.0

6. Robotics

7. Life extension Technologies

8. Bio-Agriculture

9. Atmospheric Engineering

10. Terra forming/Extra Planetary Colonization

Another one we’d add to his list is human computer interaction technology (HCIT). HCIT is a new breakthrough technology that is set to change the way we interact with computers. It works by using tiny chips installed under the surface of electronic devices. When activated, the chips deliver a “touch” response that you can actually feel.

So let’s say you had an HCIT-enabled computer mouse – and you moved the cursor over the picture of a beach. Even though you’re actually touching a flat mouse button, this technology makes it feel like you’re touching sand… or even rolling waves. The chips send the message to your fingers like a speaker sends a message to your ears.

It’s pretty incredible technology. Microsoft, BMW, Sony and Samsung have already jumped on board. So how can you make money in this emerging multibillion dollar market. Karim Rahemtulla of Mt. Vernon Research outlines exactly how to profit from the coming boom here.

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

You see, this past Tuesday, his Investment U article caught my attention. In case you missed it, it was written about green energy. In it, Louis makes an argument for a “green energy super-bubble” that could burst in as little as two or three years, leaving unwary alternative energy investors in the lurch.

In his article, he cites four conditions that exist that make alternative energy ripe for a bubble. Those conditions may indeed be forming, but in and of themselves won’t cause a “speculative bubble.” In this case, there’s definitely more to the story.

The Defense of Alternative Energy & Green Investing

Louis: “The legislation is in place, and more is on the way.”

You’ll get no argument from me that Bush’s foray into increased ethanol production was misguided at best. But unlike ethanol, solar, wind and geothermal tax credits have been the catalysts that have energized those respective industries.

Improvements in technology have resulted in generation costs on par with – and in some cases, below – conventional fossil fuel sources. And with regard to solar in particular, costs per watt are on track to drop another 50% in the next few years. And in spite of the lower costs, industry margins will be in the 35% to 50% range, three times what they are today. That’s a recipe for increased earnings if I ever saw one.

Louis: “Money is already pouring into the sector.”

The $200 billion that Louis said flowed into the sector in the last two years is about right for a capital-intensive business like alternative energy. If it weren’t flowing into alternative energy development and deployment, where else in the energy sector would it go?

To pay for higher oil, for one, but perhaps it’s easier to describe where it won’t be going:

• No one wants a fossil fuel plant in their backyard (few are even planned, let alone being built), and you can forget about any new nuclear power plants here in the United States.
• Only a few are even in the permit stage (a 10-year process in and of itself), construction can take 10 to 15 years, and cost $15 to $20 billion. In June 2008, Moody’s estimated that the cost of power produced by a nuclear plant might possibly exceed $7 per watt, 10 times that of solar’s $0.70 per watt. And then there’s the spent fuel issue, decommissioning, etc.

Plenty of Room to Up Spending on Alternative Energy

Given that the United States alone spends over $500 billion every year on foreign oil, there’s plenty of room to up the spending on alternative energies like wind power.

Besides, we don’t really have a choice; cheap energy’s the key ingredient for economic growth. The problem with coal, oil and natural gas is that they are all finite resources, and we’ve already used all the best deposits (those with the highest energy content). Combine that with oil prices that will likely be closer to $100 a barrel by the end of the year, reigniting interest in alternatives.

Louis: “Tough credit conditions actually encourage more speculation.”

I’d argue that it’s really investment we’re talking about, not speculation. Because of the tax credits mentioned earlier, many start-ups already exist – particularly in the solar sector – where no less than 143 companies are currently playing in the thin-film segment of the industry.

There’s no question that they won’t all survive. But those that do will have viable, long-term business supplying the world with much-needed alternatives to fossil fuels.

Louis: “Green is the new black.”

Here I whole-heartedly agree, but for a different reason…

A Paradigm Shift Is Underway In Alternative Energy

There’s a paradigm shift underway in the alternative energy sector. Fossil fuels are on their way out and green is on the way in. It’s going to be a 20- to -30-year process, and that’s why it’s destined to be such a great opportunity for investors.

It’s not just a “U.S. social responsibility” thing, either. In fact, it’s just the opposite. Our alternative energy roadmap is far behind those of many other nations. Take Portugal, for instance, where over 60% of their energy comes from renewable sources. Their goal? 100%. China and Germany also have aggressive alternative energy generation plans underway.

And because of all the government tax incentives dangled in front of the myriad companies, cost-effective solar panels and wind generators are already in use, generating power that produces no greenhouse gas, and more importantly, don’t use a drop of oil when running.

Here’s the bottom-line: The global need for cheap energy is so monumental, alternative energy is destined to remain a target-rich environment for many years to come. Will some companies be better investments than others? Of course… just like they are in any other sector.

But a bursting bubble in two to three years? I don’t believe it. Actually, a mini one burst last year when oil dropped from $147 a barrel to where it is today, driving many solar, wind and geothermal stocks down as much as 80%. The valuations that these companies are sporting now are, in many cases, as low as they’ve ever been.

And that has helped to set up what could be one of the best sectors to invest in moving forward… for decades to come.

One thing you can be sure of: Both Louis and I will be watching it all unfold with an eye (or two, in this case) towards providing you with some great ideas for investing… and maybe for a few bragging rights.

Source: Alternative Energy: Why You Can’t Ignore “Green” Investing

Here he distinguishes the pros, the cons and how you could profit on the “largest speculative bubble” he has ever seen.

This from Lou:

A few months ago I warned you about the bubble in U.S. Treasuries. And sure enough, it’s popping.

Treasuries have already plummeted 20% from their December peak. By my estimates, they’ve still got another 20% to go.

But regardless of how far price falls, it’ll be a pittance compared to the losses from the next bubble – one that could be $21-trillion large when the air comes rushing out…

In what, you ask?

Green energy… but first let me provide you with a brief historical and psychological perspective. Otherwise, I’m afraid you’ll be too quick to dismiss my prediction. And that could lead to disastrous results.

Speculative Bubbles Dot The Free-Market Landscape

Instances of speculative bubbles dot the free-market landscape…

• The 17th century brought us the Tulip Mania bubble, which like every bubble, was fueled by the social contagion of boom thinking. Tulips were the most-coveted flowers on the planet, different from every other flower known to horticulturists. As such, the incredible demand sent prices through the roof. The madness reached its peak during the winter of 1636-37, when tulip bulbs were changing hands ten times in a day. Soon after, however, the market crashed in spectacular fashion.
• In 1720, it was the South Sea Bubble, where massive over-speculation in Britain’s South Sea Company – which was granted a monopoly to trade in Spain’s South American colonies as part of a treaty during the War of Spanish Succession – caused financial ruin for many. (Incidentally, the bursting of this bubble led to a Bubble Act – talk about a useless and ineffective piece of legislation.)

Fast-forward a couple hundred years and we endured the Japanese asset price bubble of 1990 and, of course, the infamous dot-com bubble of 2000.

Lately, we’ve stepped it up even more. Three bubbles – the housing bubble, the commodity bubble and the U.S. Treasury bubble – have been crammed into a ridiculously short time span of less than eight years.

The Green Energy Super-Bubble

And unless our pattern of behavior suddenly changes, the ominous green energy super-bubble that’s forming will burst before the prior three have ample time to deflate.

We’ve ordained a bubble economy because favorable speculative conditions constantly exist. The ever-shrinking gap between bubbles serves as all the proof we need.

• Cash is the fuel.
• Legislation is the accelerant, providing extra incentives via tax credits or subsidies.
• And popular culture is the explosive kicker.

Together, they comprise the primary ingredients for a first-rate asset bubble.

And right now, there’s only one industry that rests squarely at the intersection of public policy, investing and popular culture – alternative energy.

That’s right. I believe “going green” will lead to lots of red for unprepared investors. As much as $21 trillion, based on former venture capitalist, Eric Janszen’s estimates. And here’s why…

1. The legislation is in place. And more is on the way. Under the Bush administration we got the ridiculous ethanol mandates. And solar and wind credits were routinely extended. Now, President Obama is making the environment and green-collar jobs the cornerstones of his economic recovery plan.

2. Money is already pouring into the sector. More than $200 billion was invested in clean energy and clean technology markets in the last two years. And yet, record amounts of cash are still waiting to be deployed. According to Bloomberg, speculators are sitting on $8.85 trillion in cash, desperate for an outlet.

3. Tough credit conditions actually encourage more speculation. Wayne Woo, director of Good Energies, reports that green start-ups will now give up to 75% ownership (up from 50%) to get their projects off the ground. Getting a bigger piece of the potential profit pie, for the same perceived level of risk, is bound to encourage more speculation.

4. Green is the new black. Forget fashionable. Going green resembles a religious movement nowadays. This alone has people ignoring economics in the name of social responsibility.

Unmistakably, the ingredients are all there.

What Will Burst This Green Energy Bubble?

The only question left is, “What will burst this green energy bubble?” Plenty of scenarios exist…

• Government spending could fail to create sustainable jobs, which would, in effect, cause green investment to grind to a halt. Or, the lack of focus toward one be-all, end-all alternative-energy solution, whether it be wind, solar, biofuel, or something else, could frustrate investors and force them to bail.
• Likewise, too many so-called green innovations still reside in the laboratory. Many will never make it to market, which is another surefire way to hand investors 100% losses and sap enthusiasm and future investment.
• In the end, the economics just don’t add up. Without tax breaks and government subsidies, not a single alternative energy will be able to compete. So no matter how popular or fashionable alternative energy becomes, if it remains economically stupid, it’s destined to fail.

No doubt, the run-up and profits will be historic. Just be forewarned that the green euphoria will ultimately be replaced with despair and massive losses.

It’s hard to gauge exactly when it will occur, however. I estimate we’ve got another two to three years before we hit the peak. That’s why, given the capital still rushing in, I don’t recommend avoiding the sector altogether.

Just be smart and buy proven (not probable) green energy companies. You don’t want to own companies that are stuck in the lab with loads of potential. Instead, pick the ones with bona fide products and loads of sales. And religiously use trailing stops. It’s the only way to make sure you don’t bail too early… or worse, too late.

Source: Green Energy: The Largest Speculative Bubble We’ve Ever Seen

The about-face article, which appeared in today’s edition, was written by Kate Galbraith – one of the three new green correspondents the Times has been trumpeting.

The Times reports that wind and solar energy are suffering from the credit crisis and “economic downturn.” These market realities are our core argument against alternative energy for the present time and foreseeable future. You see, the green contingent engages in a dangerous group-think that says if we all hold hands and click our heels, the financial argument for green will make sense in a world of cheap oil and high unemployment.

Apparently, the “feel-good finances” that we’ve been railing against simply aren’t working.

The Times reports “Factories building parts for these industries have announced a wave of layoffs in recent weeks, and trade groups are projecting 30 to 50 percent declines this year in installation of new equipment, barring more help from the government.”

The article quotes Mayor Richard Mattern of Fargo, ND who fell under the green spell. He told Ms. Gailbraith, “I thought if there was any industry that was bulletproof, it was that industry,” he said referring to the wind-turbine factory in his home town, which recently 20% of its workforce.

We take no delight in dancing on the pink slips of the unemployed. Our gripe is with Mayor Mattern himself, who espouses the same claptrap as the Obama administration. The difference is that when the edict comes from Washington, it falls into the category subsidized energy rather than viable business model.

The wind and solar industries are apparently hopeful that President Obama’s green thumb will help them flourish, according to the Times. But as the article states, these renewable energy plans “will take time, and in the interim they [wind and solar companies] are making plans for a dry spell.”

Even tax credits don’t seem to be working. According to the Times, “Banks have invested in renewable energy, lured by the tax credits. But with banks tightly controlling their money and profits, the main task for the companies is to find new sources of investment capital. Wind and solar companies have urged Congress to adopt measures that could help revive the market. But even if a favorable stimulus bill passes, nobody is predicting a swift recovery.”

Again, we do believe that alternative energy is viable – inevitable.  Unfortunately, it’s not the place to put your money today.

That opens up a promising opportunity for you to buy shares of one of the largest industrial battery producers before they soar in the years ahead.

Several weeks ago, I wrote here about how I believe natural gas makes sense as a bridging strategy to get us from oil over to electric as a source of energy to move us around.

Of course, the most vocal proponent of this has been T. Boone Pickens, with his “Pickens Plan.” Many have argued Pickens is only pushing the plan as a means for personal gain. I don’t believe it, for several reasons:

• First, Pickens isn’t hurting financially. Quite the opposite: He has made a fortune in the crude oil business, and his personal net worth is estimated at around $3 billion. He’s donated over $400 million to Oklahoma State University where he is an alumnus.
• Second, I think he’s one of those rare American business owners who truly wants what’s best for America.
• And now, Pickens is likely dancing in the streets: This week President Obama turned the EPA on its ear and told its new head, Lisa Jackson, to review and (likely approve) California’s request for stricter tailpipe emissions than what’s currently mandated under Federal law. This essentially reverses the roadblock/stalling techniques employed by the Bush administration, and opens the door for more strict emissions rules moving forward.

Obama made his position refreshingly clear after issuing the order: “Year after year, decade after decade, we’ve chosen delay over decisive action… rigid ideology has overruled sound science… and special interests have overshadowed common sense… My administration will not deny facts. We will be guided by them.”

Obama also plans to raise miles per gallon targets to 35 MPG by 2020. Not particularly aggressive, but the carmakers will have trouble meeting it without major design changes to many of their models. True to form, U.S. auto companies are screaming like stuck pigs… faced with the grave reality of their situation.

Once the air clears (pun intended) and the whining ends, what you’re likely to hear is how the big three automakers are rapidly ramping up their Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle research and development.

The Rise of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV)

Make no mistake: The biggest roadblock for Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles or PHEVs is battery technology that can provide enough energy for 100 to 200 miles of driving before recharging is necessary. Everything else to make the car currently exists: efficient, high-torque motors; variable ratio transmissions; and strong, lightweight composite materials for the body and frame.

Benefits of PHEVs are blatently obvious:

• Reduce – and in fact nearly eliminate – our dependence on foreign oil.
• Greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
• Revitalize the American automobile industry (and companies that support it) when we need it most.
• Provide thousands of jobs constructing the charging station infrastructure that will be required to support a national PHEV fleet of cars and trucks.
• The creation of even more jobs to upgrade and expand our nation’s power grid to get all the additional power that will be required to where it’s needed.
• Employ still more workers to construct solar and wind farms to generate the additional power required.

Clearly, the American automobile manufacturers have their work cut out for them with regards to PHEVs. Had they taken the long view three or four years ago on PHEVs instead of the short-sighted profit view of selling SUVs, we might already be there.

Now they find themselves in the difficult position of trying to survive the current credit freeze and consumer-spending shutdown that could easily last another 12 months. It’s not clear at this point which – if any of them – will last long enough to be able to bring a viable PHEV design to market, although all three have announced they’ll be introducing electric production vehicles in the next two years.

General Motors, with its Chevy Volt, appears to be the closest with an actual production model. But it is probably in the worst financial condition of the three. So we’ll have to toss GM (NYSE:GM), Ford (NYSE:F) and Chrysler on the “don’t” pile for now.

The Real Winners In The PHEV Game – Battery Companies

The real winners in the PHEV game will be the battery companies. They’ll be tasked with supplying the high-power batteries necessary to get a decent size fleet of PHEVs rolling down the nation’s highways.

Right now, the most promising technology that seems like it can provide the power densities required for the 100 to 200 mile target commuting range is Lithium-Ion. Car companies are already running test vehicles using lithium batteries, but cost is still an issue, and they’re coming up a little short on the range.

But they’ll get there: I believe that the power density issue will be solved within the next 12 to 18 months and manufacturing costs will be driven down by advanced yet-to-be-developed mass-production techniques.

So who’s in the battery business?

EnerSys (Nasdaq:ENS) is one of the largest manufacturers, marketers and distributors of industrial batteries. From submarines to spaceships – and everything in between – EnerSys has a battery technology to fit the application. It also makes the charging and power equipment as well.

Last Fall, the company launched its EcoSafe line of batteries designed for renewable energy storage applications. Targeted towards the wind and solar energy generation markets, this product line should see significant growth under President Obama’s energy initiatives.

It’s also working with a number of niche players to develop a Lithium-Ion line of batteries specifically targeted to the PHEV transportation market.

Based on comments he made this past Monday, Obama seems completely tuned in to our energy issues: “At a time of such great challenge for America, no single issue is as fundamental to our future as energy. It falls on us to choose whether to risk the peril that comes with our current course or to seize the promise of energy independence. And for the sake of our security, our economy and our planet, we must have the courage and commitment to change. I cannot promise a quick fix.”

I agree. But if we don’t get started, we’ll never get there. We’ll be watching.

Good investing,

David Fessler

P.S. If you’re looking for more ways to play the green energy boom, I urge you consider signing up for The Oxford Club. You’ll get all of our current recommendations and the Communiqué. You can sign up here. Then check out the recent portfolio updates.

If you’re already a member, you can log in here.

Today’s Investment U Crib Sheet

Any discussion of our nation and its place in the world seems to come back to energy independence and the ways we can pull ourselves away from our oil addiction. It’s why our energy and infrastructure expert David Fessler has been keeping us in the loop on the latest developments.

One of the biggest misconceptions lately has been the perception that our country is cutting back its use of fossil fuels, like coal. It couldn’t be more incorrect. In fact, our country is using more coal than ever. And with the amount of energy that we get from coal, it’ll be a long time before we can replace it. But that doesn’t mean that investors don’t stand to profit from our biggest energy source. “Renewable Energy Reality: Coal.”

David also showed us how energy and gas prices are inexorably linked last week. Read more on “The Gas Prices Rollercoaster.”

But just because we haven’t moved away from fossil fuels, doesn’t mean that we can’t profit from their movements. In fact, there’s been a unique situation called contango that’s been affecting the oil futures market. We’ve been covering contango since it began in earnest almost two weeks ago, but there are good and bad ways to play it. For clarification, we’ve included “How to Profit from Rising Oil Prices.”

Source: Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles: The Only Roadblock to PHEVs

For the past few months, we’ve cautioned investors from buying into the hype that Obama’s green revolution would provide a new path to Easy Street for investors. Now an article in today’s Wall Street Journal reports that Obama’s $825 billion economic-recovery package “may not provide as big a near-term lift for the economy as expected.”

While this poses major obstacles for investors who bought in early on the hype to invest in raw materials such as steel and cement, the implications are even darker for America’s fledgling renewable energy sector.

On the campaign trail, Obama vowed to invest $150 billion over the next 10 years on renewable energy — giving rise to an entire new sector that would create thousands of jobs.

But it looks like Obama’s stimulus plan is more sizzle than steak for individual investors and the legion of unemployed.

The Journal says that nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected less than half of the $355 billion that House Democrats want to spend on highways, bridges and other job-creating investments is likely to be used before the end of fiscal 2010. What that means is that the balance would be spent after the recession is expected to end.

Republicans said the analysis shows that the package, which Democratic leaders drew up with top Obama aides to boost the ailing economy, wouldn’t create the promised jobs, according to the Journal. “Clearly, we’re not talking about a stimulus bill,” said Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor, the second-ranking House Republican, in the article.

In fact, upon close scrutiny, most of the stimulus package would initially go toward jobless benefits, health care for the poor and middle-class tax cuts.

The bill originally gave states 90 days to spend money on infrastructure projects or risk losing the funds. But in a new report the CBO study concluded that states couldn’t act that fast. Democrats replaced that provision with one that would award states a bonus if they spend the money within 120 days.

Even if the states could pull together plans that would accommodate 120-day limit, the renewable energy projects that would be part of these packages could easily get tied up in court for years to come.

As we’ve said before, the problem with this bill to construct a green industry fails to take into account that the very people who proclaim allegiance to green are also the same people who could fight solar arrays, wind farms and energy superhighways on the grounds of environmental damage.

Endangered species, protected waterways and national parks are all potential battlegrounds for green vs. green in courtrooms across America. This is where federal mandates clash with local sentiment on setting both national and regional priorities from investments in renewable energy.

All of this is additional bad news for headline investors making a grab for that pot of gold at the end of the renewable energy rainbow. President Obama talks about a new transparency in government, and now we can see through his campaign promises to make everyone rich with green.

In one story, the Journal covers a recently released annual report from the International Energy Agency. According to the Journal, the IAE paints a gloomy picture of energy shortages and escalating costs of discovery and recovery.

The IAE says that current low oil prices are an anomaly linked to the economic crisis embracing the world. Eventually, when the economy regains its health, oil prices will continue to climb over the coming years to hit $200 a barrel by 2030.

One problem with energy prices remains a dilapidated infrastructure. In turn, energy companies would have to invest more than $26 trillion by 2030, with over half of that going to increased power generation and distribution. Most of the rest of the investment will go to exploring and developing new sources of oil, the Journal writes.

Underinvestment by the oil industry could be just as responsible as increased global consumption for future price increases. Energy companies will have to spend $350 billion a year on new oil and gas projects through 2030. By comparison, the industry spent a total of $390 billion from 2000 to 2007, said the Journal.

There are two obstacles faced by oil companies when it comes to making these massive investments.

The first is the state of the current economy and shrinking energy consumption. The second is that many oil fields are past their prime, as Peak Oil proponents have been saying for decades. To extract more oil presents a questionable economic argument for new investment.

The IEA asserts, however, that renewable energy sources will grow by over 7% a year – reaching 4% of the world total by 2030, up from 1% in 2006.

That said, the IEA also said the U.S., Europe and Japan will likely never use more oil than they did last year. All projected increases in oil demand will come from the developing world, mainly China, India and the Middle East.

So if in fact the U.S. oil consumption has peaked, does it make sense for our new democratic regime to sink $150 billion over the next decade into creating new jobs for the green sector?

That’s the question asked in the second article in today’s Journal.

This piece challenges the wisdom of creating government-subsidized green jobs, at a time when the jury is still out about the economics of green energy.

President-elect Obama maintains that spending $150 billion over the next decade to boost energy efficiency would help create five million jobs, according to the Journal.

But the article goes on to say that these numbers are under assault by another contingent in the Obama camp.

As the Journal writes, several studies estimate that $1 invested in renewable energy or energy efficiency would yield up to four times as many jobs as $1 invested in oil and gas, whose basic infrastructure of wells, refineries and pipelines has been around for years. Moreover, those studies say, clean-energy jobs are likely to be centered in the U.S., unlike jobs in the oil and gas industry, which increasingly are spread around the world.

From our perspective, this argument is riddled with holes. Right now, China is the dominant supplier of solar-energy systems and plans on extending its lead. China is also making a push to develop state-of-the-art wind turbines.

While heavy hitters such as General Electric and T. Boone Pickens talk about their multi-billion investments in wind, there has been little competition to get these deals. Sooner rather than later, China will step in – and we know how that story ends.

The Journal also says that job creation in a burgeoning green sector could also lead to job losses in mature energy industries such as coal and oil.

Robert Pollin, a professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who co-wrote a study that questions the job target by the Obama campaign.

It said that $100 billion spent over two years could produce two million green jobs, according to the Journal. But his study didn’t count jobs that might be lost elsewhere in the economy if the country shifted to more expensive sources of green energy.

As we see it, more expensive energy leads to inflation, which also results in job losses. Businesses have to maintain a certain level of profitability, and if they’re paying more for clean energy it seems that heads will roll in the interest of net profits.

Once again, the numbers point to higher investments in fossil-fuel infrastructure versus clean energy. It’s not that we’re opposed to a cleaner environment, but new technologies in fossil-fuel discovery, reduced emissions and improved efficiency will continue to provide bigger returns in fossil fuels.

According to The Guardian newspaper, there’s growing confidence that so-called “grid parity”, the holy grail of the industry — whereby solar power can be produced as cheaply as it bought from the grid — is close at hand.

“The [US]  government recently incentivized production of ethanol, biofuel, and solar technology,” says Charles Delvalle in Investor’s Daily Edge.

If a Democrat gets into office, these incentives should grow. Congress even pushed up the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) guidelines for the first time since 1975. And the idea of carbon credits is beginning to gain traction in Congress.

So the government is helping fuel the creation of cleaner energy. Step one is complete.

What about step two?

If I talk to any of my friends and tell them I love the things oil does to the earth, they’ll slap me (yes, I know oil is bad for the earth). If I told them that I didn’t recycle, they’d yell at me (yes, I recycle). My friends are already convinced that the green movement is the way to go.

If you type in the word ‘green’ in Google, you’ll see thousands of new websites that all talk about how great it is to be green.

Look at corporate trends, and you see more commercials with companies talking about going green. Wal-Mart, IBM, Intel, Google, and even ExxonMobil is getting into the act. The idea of going green is spreading like wildfire. And it will only increase as gas prices move higher.

The green market is definitely seeing the second step. But how about the third?

Have you seen solar stocks lately? In the past two years, these companies have popped by 100% – 300%. And it seems like a new solar company pops up every other day touting a ‘breakthrough’ technology that allows amazing conversion of light to electricity. Many have no profits to speak of and don’t plan on entering production for years.

Ethanol stocks were moving higher for a while, 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.

“The richest investment opportunities can be found in the fast-emerging alternative energy sector,” says Mike Burnick in The Offshore A-Letter.

That’s where oilman T. Boone Pickens is putting his money – his company Mesa Power just placed an order for US$2 billion in wind turbines. And there’s much more profit potential in other parts of the alternative energy sector too – especially alternative fuel.

The market for ALL alternative energy sources grew 40% last year alone to US$77.3 billion and will explode into a US$250 billion industry within 10 years.

Bio-fuel grew to a US$25.4 billion market last with more than 15 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel produced globally – more than double the output of just four years ago. The worldwide Bio-fuel industry will continue to enjoy explosive growth for years to come – expanding into a US$81 billion business within the next 10-years!

The European Union has set a target date of 2020 for 20% of its energy to come from renewable sources. The British Wind Energy Association said Britain will contribute 15%, meaning up to 40% of the country’s power will come from wind energy by the target date.

“The richest investment opportunities can be found in the fast-emerging alternative energy sector,” says Mike Burnick in The Offshore A-Letter.

That’s where oilman T. Boone Pickens is putting his money – his company Mesa Power just placed an order for US$2 billion in wind turbines. And there’s much more profit potential in other parts of the alternative energy sector too – especially alternative fuel.

• The market for ALL alternative energy sources grew 40% last year alone to US$77.3 billion and will explode into a US$250 billion industry within 10 years.
• Bio-fuel grew to a US$25.4 billion market last with more than 15 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel produced globally – more than double the output of just four years ago.
• The worldwide Bio-fuel industry will continue to enjoy explosive growth for years to come – expanding into a US$81 billion business within the next 10-years!

But you don’t have to wait two decades or even two years to start making serious money from this energy-sector market shock…

Fossil fuels are dead – the future belongs to alternative energy. Vast fortunes will be made in the “great fuel revolution!”

Investing in established wind energy stocks stocks is a great way to profit, says Charles Delvalle in Investor’s Daily Edge:

It seems to me that investing in green stocks is a great thing to do. What you want to do is avoid the companies that have no profits… the ones that are using very experimental technologies that haven’t been proven yet. These companies may do well in the future, but you take a huge risk by putting your money on them now.

If you think investing in clean energy is a bad idea, just take a look at the Market Vectors Global Alternative Energy Fund (GEX) and you’ll see that the sector’s been clearly moving higher. And the PowerShares Global Clean Energy Portfolio (PBD) has been doing the same.