What may not come to mind, though, when you think of America’s 50th state are its energy resources – and specifically, the fact that it gets 77% of its power from oil-fired power plants. That’s a unique statistic within the United States. Coal-fired plants provide 14% of power, and the remaining 9% comes from renewable sources like wind and solar energy.

Suffice it to say, tourism is Hawaii’s largest industry, with agriculture playing a major role, too. And not unlike the rest of the country, the one thing needed to keep it all running smoothly is a reliable source of electricity.

Problem is, Hawaii is dependent on fossil fuels for more than 90% of its power – an issue that became shockingly clear when oil spiked to $147 a barrel last year. As a result, the Hawaiian Electric Company – the state’s main electric utility – was briefly forced to charge users more than 50 cents per kilowatt-hour – over five times the national average.

So what is the state doing to relieve this situation?

Hawaii Treads Down the Renewable Energy Path

For Hawaii, wildly fluctuating oil prices and potential supply disruptions leave it uniquely vulnerable. The state estimates that every 10% increase in oil prices reduces its GDP by 0.5%.

Clearly something had to be done. And there is some good news.

Because of its unique location and physical makeup, the Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that Hawaii can potentially meet 60-70% of its overall energy requirements through the use of renewable energy sources.

And last year, under an agreement between the DOE and the State of Hawaii, long-term plans were set in motion that will result in Hawaii getting 40% of its power from renewable sources by 2030.

This landmark agreement – and its ultimate implementation – is being viewed as a national experiment. If successful, it could ultimately be replicated in other parts of the country. And island nations could benefit, too.

Here’s how the DOE and Hawaii are doing it…

Hawaii’s Four-Track Renewable Energy Plan

A working group including members from both the DOE and Hawaii are addressing four main areas of renewable energy performance:

• End-Use Efficiency: The goal is to achieve zero net-energy use buildings and communities, along with significant reductions in power usage by military bases.

• Electric Generation: Significant expansion of renewable energy at both the state and local levels, and the facilitating of distributed renewable generation on a statewide basis.

• Energy Delivery: Additional grid development and improvements to the existing grid in the form of smart-grid management, as well as grid energy storage that will optimize renewable energy sources.

• Transportation: The formation of a long-term strategy for the implementation of the production, distribution and use of alternative fuels for transportation to acceleration the adoption of electric vehicles.

The group has produced two, five, and ten-year pans that have marked the initial actions necessary in order to kickoff the activities in each of the above energy performance areas.

Putting the Four-Track Plan Into Fast-Track Mode

With an agreement in place, Hawaii’s governor, Linda Lingle, has fast-tracked the plan.

She’s called on privately held California startup firm, Better Place, to install as many as 100,000 electric car-charging stations by 2012 – a project worth $100 million. The goal is to have car-charging stations pop-up all over the Hawaiian islands, with privately held Better Place supplying the batteries and recharging services.

This plan assumes that the major car manufacturers buy into the arrangement So far, Nissan-Renault has agreed to make vehicles that will work with Better Place’s network of stations. And I expect more car companies to announce plans to participate, too.

Of course, all this additional power to charge the cars has to come from the grid – and major grid improvements are already underway.

Supercharging Hawaii’s Electric Project

All of Hawaii’s six separate grids are in the process of being connected together via undersea electric cables. Once in place, Oahu will get its power through them.

And with all the renewable wind power and solar farms being planned as part of the increase in renewable energy generation, managing the fluctuations in supply and demand becomes a more daunting task than it is now.

As a result, General Electric (NYSE: GE) is right in the thick of the plan, developing ways to store energy via batteries and pumped hydro storage. This will allow the Hawaiian Electric Company to smooth out peaks and valleys in its overall energy supply-demand model.

Hawaii’s plan is just now getting underway – 2030 isn’t that far down the road. But as its interim successes become apparent to the rest of the country and the world, companies like GE and Better Place will certainly be in the catbird seat.

Good investing,

Dave Fessler

Source: Hawaii’s Renewable Energy Revolution

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

I had lunch with a “brain trust,” of sorts. Participants included a retired executive from an aerospace company. This guy helped design and build many of the reconnaissance satellites that the U.S. has launched. There was a senior executive from a large steel company. There was a venture capitalist who made his first $500 million in the software industry, and who now has much of that wealth spread around in biotech and nanotech startups. And then there was me.

If you’re into lunches where you’d rather listen than eat, then this was the lunch for you.

According to the satellite builder, the dominant elements of the political and media culture are “completely in the tank” when it comes to believing in the dangers of “climate change.” It’s not as if climate change is demonstrably true, he pointed out. There are valid scientific data from both sides of the climate change issue, and many valid data points in between. But according to the satellite builder – some of whose satellites were built to track climate change — “For at least ten years, if you have not been promoting the dangers of climate change then you have not been receiving government grants. So the research community is following the money.”

Thus, the research literature is coming out strongly in favor of “doing something” about climate change. And policy-makers are using this research literature to justify doing something about climate change, even if the something that they are doing does not make any scientific or economic sense.

According to the steel executive, the climate change issue has spurred what amounts to “a pathological hatred” of carbon-based energy systems. “It doesn’t have to make practical sense,” says this source. “It doesn’t even have to work with economics. It just has to support a policy to utterly transform the nation’s energy system. The people making policy now have a crusader’s mentality. So the new policy makers want to promote radical change in energy policy. They’re going to jam it down the throat of the economy.”

According to the steel executive, the steel industry expects to see inflation-adjusted, baseline energy prices triple or quadruple within ten years. “Whether the government taxes carbon-based energy at the source, or whether they pass ‘cap-and-trade’ legislation, it’s going to cost us. So we’ll pay. Of course, we’ll pass along the new costs to the steel buyers. If demand goes down, we’ll close facilities. Then the TV cameras will show up at the plant gates to watch us shut the doors and click the padlocks. And we’ll get called bad names by the people who never much liked us in the first place.”

The venture capitalist chimed in with some thoughts. “If the feds are going to spend billions on stimulus, then they ought to direct some of that money to help fund promising research. How about some money to pay for every fossil-fuel power plant in the country to siphon off some of its CO2? Then run the CO2 through a facility to grow algae to make biofuels.”

“We’d be killing about four birds with one stone,” explained the venture capitalist. “We’d be taking down CO2 emissions. Not much, maybe, but some. We’d be helping an embryonic industry that can be competitive in coming years. Heck, turning algae into fuel is easy. The basic part is just high school chemistry. So we’d be creating a new supply source for the liquid fuels industry. And we’d be able to point to at least one success story where people can agree that we all did something right.”

Then the venture capitalist added that one of his startups is “working on coal-eating bugs.” He explained that “There’s a lot of coal buried so deep, or under other conditions that we can’t mine it. That coal will never get out. So why not put bugs down in the deep seams, and let them eat the coal? Then we can harvest the gases that come out the back end of the bugs, and use that as feedstock for other things.”

At one point, one of the lunch participants turned to the silent person at the table, who was busy taking it all in and making a few discrete notes. Then came the dreaded question, “Well Byron, what do YOU think?”

I focused my comments on geothermal development. I pointed out that for all the anti-carbon sentiment out there, the most under-appreciated, “clean and green” energy source is geothermal. There appears to be strong support for geothermal development via tax incentives and other, policy-based standards. Combine this with the growing social focus on clean, renewable energy sources.

Right now, 24 states have renewable portfolio standards (RPS) for electricity production. And Congress is leaning towards setting a national standard of 20% to 25% RPS power production by 2025. We’re at the point where a utility like California’s Pacific Gas and Electric is so desperate for “clean” energy that they’re contracting with a privately-owned company to build a satellite to harvest solar energy from space, and “beam” it back to earth.

Many of the geothermal companies that are out there now are in relatively advanced stages of development. But the problem during the past year or so has been lack of access to capital. In other words, lack of capital is the strongest headwind to progress.

I’ve recommended five geothermal companies to the subscribers of Energy and Scarcity…and I still like all five of these companies. They are all finding steam. They all have power purchase agreements in place. And they are all about to become players within the “clean green” energy space.

No matter what problems might still befall the U.S. economy, I would expect many geothermal companies to thrive. They are simply in the right place at right time.

Source: Clean, Rhymes with Green

The price of oil is a function of many things, but as with all economic issues its prime mover is demand. Demand for the past 18 months has been dropping due to the economic meltdown worldwide. This has made for great energy prices, but it’s like a warm day in January in Canada.  It’s not real and anyone who has ever lived through a northern winter knows it will not last.

Why?

First, the world is coming out of this recession and oil demand is about to explode and we, the USA, the biggest energy pig in the world, have done nothing to prepare for it. We have less of an ability to provide for our energy needs now than we did 35 years ago.

Second, Asia and the rest of the developing world are coming out of this worldwide slow down, too. Consider how much more oil will be going to Asia and the developing world as they rebound and start to suck up what’s left of the world’s capacity to produce black gold. The demand picture really begins to come into focus.

Third, the current effort of the Obama administration to avoid a depression by pumping trillions into the economy has worked. We are soaring out of the hole faster than anyone could have imagined a year ago. At the same time we are doing so with no way to fuel it, literally fuel it.

We are completely unprotected from the threats to our economy and future well being that comes from importing 75% of our oil.

Fourth, there has been zero new development of oil reserves partly because of a very admirable effort by the Obama administration to shift to clean renewable energy. Clean and renewable is great, but we have about a ten year gap that has to be filled with oil before we can make that a reality.

Fifth, a dysfunctional congress whose priorities are their careers, their party, their district and whatever is left over goes to the well being of this country, in that order. Congress is all but incapable of working toward a long term solution to the problem.

Add them up and we have all of the necessary elements for the biggest rise in oil prices in our history over the next three to five years. Here’s how we can make money on this mess.

DXO, Power Shares Deutsche Bank Crude, or DIG, Ultra Oil and gas Pro Shares, both are designed to give you twice the percentage return of any increase in the price of oil. In the past month or so DXO bottomed at about $1.90 per share and ran to about $3.20 on just a $12 dollar move up in the price of crude. That’s a 68% move. DIG has had a similar neck snapping rebound.

If oil only goes to the $75 range, which is a given at this point, the DXO and DIG stand to move another 130%. The money we can make here is mind boggling.

The best part of this play is that it is inevitable. The chances of oil not moving up in price are almost zero.

You will only get a few opportunities like this in your investing life. Think of all the times you looked back at the market and thought how great it would have been if you had put money in at the bottom. This is the bottom!

As always time is the key to the success of this recommendation. A move to $75 a barrel is very likely by the end of this year, but the big money could be several years out. Give this time to work and you won’t be disappointed.

100% plus this year is just the beginning of this move.

Source: Retire Early Compliments of OPEC

This from Money Mornings Peter Krauth:

There’s an epic confrontation brewing inside the new administration of U.S. President Barack Obama. And it has nothing to do with the controversial economic stimulus package, or the new banking-bailout blueprint that U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is expected to unveil today (Tuesday).

This “other” confrontation has to do with energy. And the two sides are very clearly delineated.

On the left is renewable energy. On the right: Secure access to oil.

Upping the ante in this already monumental debate is the huge decline in the stock and commodities markets – a skid that’s firmly etched in investors’ minds. Here’s why.

Anyone who followed the Obama campaign remembers his pledges to ensure forceful action aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions by raising energy efficiency, increasing the use of “greener” energy sources, and rolling out emissions standards that would apply across the nation.

And only a couple of weeks ago, as we sat fixated on his inaugural speech, the new president reminded us of the need to harness the power of wind and sun to safeguard the environment.

But he also unmistakably reaffirmed the importance of energy security to America.

So, in building his cabinet, President Obama has positioned some heavyweights to back up his words, on both sides of the debate.

The Dilemma

How will these seasoned veterans, as they set out to accomplish their own objectives, reshape the future of energy policy?

Well, one sure bet is to expect a regular stream of abundant pressure from the environmentalists. They will be eager to legislate new standards for greenhouse gas emissions, and they’ll appeal to the president’s stated goals of shifting energy use toward environmentally friendlier technologies.

But achieving a “greener environment” brings new costs, such as cap-and-trade schemes, carbon taxes and maybe even new gasoline taxes.

Yet right now, America is contending with the rawest of nerve endings in the form of a highly frail economy that is “teetering on the brink” of an even deeper downturn than we’re already ensconced in, thanks to escalating job losses and a massive credit drought.

So it’s naïve to think these factors won’t influence policy, at least in the near-to-medium term.

And, to add to the mix, we have to factor in a vital American concern: The U.S. economy would seize up like the Tin Woodsman in a monsoon without the continued supply of foreign oil.

The Team

Defending the “environmental camp” are Carol Browner, Lisa Jackson and Stephen Chu.

Browner, the former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator, is now adviser for energy and climate change.  Jackson, who spent 15 years with the EPA and most recently served as New Jersey’s environmental protection commissioner, will replace Browner as the new EPA administrator. And Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and vocal advocate of national-emissions caps, is now the U.S. energy secretary.

In the “secure energy” camp are Gen. James L. Jones and Hillary R. Clinton.

Gen. Jones is Obama’s new national security advisor. He is retired from the U.S. Marine Corps and was once the NATO supreme commander. Those who know him say he’s well respected (read tough) and fair, with the ability to assess a variety of options, no matter their source.

Probably the most prominent face on the team is that of Clinton, the new secretary of state. As most of us know, Clinton is an experienced politician, and is likely to wield considerable influence that we shouldn’t underestimate.

What’s Next?

So who will win out? And more importantly, how should you position your portfolio to benefit?
Obama will work hard to seek common ground. But I expect that the pressures of an economy on life support will prevail over the next 12-18 months.

Of the $850 billion stimulus package, a good portion is sure to find its way into green energy, but will only get spent by late 2010.  In the meantime, it will be too risky to cripple the economy further with additional tax burdens and higher costs.

In that case, you can look for the new president to enact legislation that is beneficial to the environment, but will only take effect within about two years.

That gives the economy a reprieve, and also allows the demand and price of oil to climb back toward the $70 to $80 a barrel, a level that would allow costlier oil production to turn a reasonable profit.

From an investment standpoint, then, a higher price, and a secure source of oil from U.S. neighbors, means the Canadian oil sands, natural gas, and conventional oil producers should be on your radar, experts agree.

What The Players Are Saying

Both Gen. Jones and Secretary of State Clinton recognize Canada as a stable and abundant source of oil.  That’s logical in my view, as Canada’s oil reserves are second only to those of Saudi Arabia.

[Editor's Note: By the way - and this is a point that both Money Morning Investment Director Keith Fitz-Gerald and investing icon Jim Rogers have repeatedly made - no independent source has been allowed to verify the Saudi numbers.]

And as it turns out, Gen. Jones is a staunch supporter of Canada and its oil sands.

As chairman of the Institute for 21st Century Energy, Gen. Jones has delivered a number of defining speeches in which he highlighted energy security as a top priority for America’s safety.

And the Institute supports both Canada and Mexico as strategic sources of oil as America tries to wean itself from the oil of “less stable” nations.  What’s more, 21st Century cautions that imposing costly climate change legislation could cause the already foundering U.S. economy to fail.

So while Canada and the United States have longed enjoyed a rather close relationship (usually friendly, though at times antagonistic), I do expect it will become more intense.  Scores of issues, including NATO, the Northwest Passage, harmonized emissions standards, and energy security will take center stage.
None of this has been lost on the new secretary of state either.

In her senate confirmation hearing, Secretary of State Clinton thought it vital to mention that “in our efforts to return to economic growth here in the United States, we have an especially critical need to work more closely with Canada, our largest trading partner, and Mexico, our third-largest. Canada and Mexico are also our biggest suppliers of imported energy.”

And just running my quick Google search also reveals that, according to the Energy Information Administration, Canada (in top spot) supplies nearly 50% more oil to the United States than does Saudi Arabia (in 2nd spot).  And Mexico’s (3rd spot) level of oil exports to the United States are shrinking, as its main oil field, the Cantarell Complex, has peaked, and now depletes around 15% per year.

Facts are facts, and President Obama knows that a healthy U.S. economy needs Canada’s secure oil.  Investing in alternative energies is the right action to take, but the costs are high, and the output and payoff are years away.

Early this year, President Obama will go to Canada on his first official foreign visit.  And Canadian Prime Minister Stephen J. Harper is likely to remind the new president of an important statistic:  Alberta’s oil sands already export 500,000 barrels of secure oil to the United States every day.

How To Play This Trend for Maximum Output

Two of the biggest names in Canadian oil should benefit as this scenario plays out. They are Suncor Energy Inc. (SU) and EnCana Corp. (ECA).

Suncor is an integrated energy company, and one of the largest oil sands companies around.  This is no junior explorer.  It produces 220,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day (BOE/D).  And the company is currently tremendously undervalued.

They have ambitious plans to expand as well, to 550,000 (BOE/D) by 2012. Current oil prices would not justify the investment, but that’s if you think oil’s staying at $40, which I don’t.  Refining and marketing are also significant to Suncor’s business.  The company’s 160,000 (BOE/D) refining capacity provides a higher value with respect to its oil sands assets.

Downstream, Suncor also owns 300 Sunoco gas stations in Canada, 44 Phillips stations in Colorado, and offers diesel fuel to corporate clients directly from its Canadian terminals.  All of this ensures direct access to customers for the company’s end products, which protects cash flow under tight credit conditions.

In order to process all that tar sand into oil, Suncor needs plenty of natural gas.  And it’s established a significant collection of natural gas projects that are able to amply supply its internal production, while generating excess to sell into the market. This internal natural gas asset bodes well for the company’s self-reliance, as well as its investment attractiveness.

And interestingly enough, Suncor has forayed into alternative energies, as well.  The company has four wind farms in Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan, and runs the largest ethanol facility north of the U.S. border.

Both of these “green” energy projects help provide two vital benefits:

• Diversification.
• And carbon credits.

Should a cap-and-trade scheme eventually be implemented, these credits would help offset current production emissions.

Suncor needs $49 a barrel oil to break even. So unless you think that we’re going to remain at or below that level for an extended period, you’ll want to own this company for the long term.

The aforementioned EnCana is another leading oil-and gas-producer in North America, with 100% of its production and reserves on this continent. Natural gas production is in the neighborhood of 2.2 billion cubic feet per day, and oil and natural gas liquids are about 120,000 barrels per day, with about 50,000 of that from oil sands.

Together with ConocoPhillips (COP), EnCana has formed an integrated North American heavy oil business.  EnCana’s contributions to this 50/50 venture are two oil sands projects with 6.5 billion barrels of recoverable resources. Conoco’s contributions are Illinois and Texas based refineries with heavy oil processing facilities.

About 80% of EnCana’s current production is in natural gas, which is interesting for two reasons:

• First, natural gas was recently trading at roughly $4.50 per thousand cubic feet (Mcf), yet the company has hedged its production through October ‘09 at $9.15 Mcf, allowing for considerable profit protection.
• Secondly, natural gas is likely to be favored by the new Obama administration – especially for power generation, since it burns much more cleanly than coal.

For the investor seeking an energy play, EnCana is also a more conservative pick than Suncor, due to its higher relative natural gas revenue, its venture with ConocoPhillips, and more diversified sources of income.

And recently, Innovest Strategic Value Advisors (a New York based research firm) included EnCana in its Top 100 list of most sustainable large companies in the world, citing EnCana’s above-average investments in renewable energy.

Yes, it’s true that oil sands production brings about higher greenhouse-gas emissions.  But oil-sands producers are aware of this.  The province of Alberta will spend $2 billion to develop new methodologies to sequester large amounts of carbon dioxide underground to negate these unwanted effects.

So when you boil things down, Canada is far and away the largest, nearest, most reliable source of friendly oil for the United States.  And until the U.S. economy recovers during the next year or more, transforming “green” energy into “affordable” energy will remain more of a challenge than a reality.

Source: Two Ways to Profit From the Obama Administration’s Energy Dilemma

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

This from The Daily Reckoning:

Contrary to the common misconception, we have no energy shortage. In fact, we have more energy available than we could ever use. If not for the anti-nuclear movement, the funders of terrorism would not be awash with petrodollars and our economy would be significantly stronger. Unfortunately, rock musicians and actors had more influence on energy policies than scientists like Petr Beckmann, whom I was lucky to have as a friend.

Dr. Beckmann was a Czech refugee from Nazism who spent much of his career in America promoting nuclear power. Until he died, Beckmann was treated as some sort of demon by the environmental movement. No longer.

Today, even green leaders are admitting the folly of rejecting this cheap, clean and safe (when compared rationally with other energy sources) technology. If there were justice, Beckmann would have statues erected in his honor.

The green turnaround on nuclear power is particularly relevant now. President-elect Obama has picked several global warming activists to serve as top officials. The most important is Harvard physicist John Holdren. As presidential science adviser, he could have a significant impact on energy policy. His career, in fact, has focused on climate change, next-generation nuclear energy and nuclear disarmament.

From the perspective of an investor, what does this mean? Among other things, it could rapidly accelerate the transition from the current generation of nuclear power plants to the next. I would, incidentally, never invest in a technology simply because it has political support. Ethanol, for example, had lots of it. It was never a good idea, though, and is finally being recognized as such.

Nuclear power as we know it today is obsolete. Current light water reactors use uranium-235. This fuel is not only expensive, but its byproducts create problems. They are difficult politically to handle and can be used to create nuclear weapons.

Those byproducts are, ironically, the reason we initially adopted uranium-235. America needed the materials for nuclear weapons. Power plants using uranium-235 provided them. Regulators, naturally, favored the technology despite the fact that there were superior fuels – especially thorium.

Thorium is not only far more abundant than uranium-235, but thorium reactors do not produce waste materials useful in nuclear weapons. In fact, the wastes are far less hazardous and much cheaper to deal with. Thorium reactors are safer in general to operate, producing little radioactive threat outside their shielding. They cannot, in fact, experience a catastrophic meltdown.

This is a much bigger deal than it appears on the surface. Fuel costs, though much lower for thorium, don’t play much of a role in total nuclear power costs. In his book The Nuclear Energy Option, Bernard Cohen estimates that safety measures to counter meltdowns account for about 75% of current plant costs. As thorium plants can’t melt down, energy costs would be significantly lower.

Additionally, thorium reactors can be almost any size. Prototypes have been made small enough for military aircraft. This makes them economically viable in developing countries without the additional cost of large-scale electrical infrastructure. Thorium reactors would also be easier to sell internationally because they cannot be used to manufacture nuclear weapons.

The shift to thorium would facilitate economic, environmental and nonproliferation causes. So why are we still building plants that burn uranium-235? This is one of the hazards of government involvement in the sciences. Once grants and regulatory attitudes that favor a technology are in place, they are huge barriers to competitors.

A free market would favor thorium over uranium anyway. Coincidentally, Obama’s administration could significantly reduce barriers to thorium energy production. I’m looking hard now at several ways to take advantage of this development.

There is one potential wrench in these works, though. It’s nuclear fusion, and it could change everything. The fuel for fusion is essentially free, so the cost of power generation is a matter of capital costs and maintenance. I’ve been a skeptic about the economics of fusion, but that has begun to change. It appears that early research grants may have derailed and forced out more promising and cheaper fusion technologies than those favored by various governments’ research efforts.

Source: The Ultimate Alternative Energy

But until that happens, the ride could be bumpy. Thankfully, we have a tree-hugging President that will do anything in his power to make sure that alternative energies – like solar – remain in the forefront of US energy production.

I’m not making this stuff up. This is common knowledge– you can already see the stock of one solar producer Suntech Power Holdings (NYSE:STP) behaving exactly how you would expect…

The first thing you’ll notice is exactly how far STP has fallen since August of last year. This isn’t unique to this company – virtually every stock in the market shows this fall. More interesting, is the potential bottom forming.

You can tell something good is brewing because…

1.    The RSI is showing a strengthening trend over the past three months. The bottoms are higher.

2.    A bullish cross of the 20 and 50-day moving averages. Even though the stock’s price is lower, the bullish cross remains.

3.    The Slow Stochastic is Oversold. This signals that conditions are ripe for buyers to flood the market and take STP much higher. At this point, a 50% spike isn’t out of the question. And the possibility for a double is very real.

It appears that the chart of this solar company is showing really great signs of a potential bottom. Considering the billions Obama will flow into this sector over the upcoming ten years, we might be seeing the cheapest price we’ll ever see for this company.

Positioning yourself today for the long-term could enrich you immensely in the years ahead.

This from Penny Sleuth:

Oil is all over the place. It’ll get crushed one day and then bounce right back into the $40s the next. And while the volatility in the oil market probably won’t change anytime soon, thanks to an uncertain economy, there is something distinctly different about the way we’re reacting to the comeback of cheap gas.

No, the green movement won’t just go away. Consumers continue to demand more earth-friendly products. A sense of urgency over climate change and OPEC’s stranglehold over our oil supply continues. We continue to seek alternatives. But alternative energy’s next wave needs to prove it can sustain once the hype dies down.

Take ethanol. At first glance, 2006 looked like a great year to be in the ethanol business. Shares of Pacific Ethanol were on fire, shattering the $20 mark by the end of March. By May, shares broke $40. Bill Gates’ millions helped jump-start the stock, and new government mandates all but ensured the success of the corn-to-fuel business.

As time would soon tell, the spring of 2006 proved to be a great time to sell your ethanol holdings. Pacific Ethanol’s light is not shining quite as brightly as it once was. The stock is more than 98% off its 2006 high, and Gates is steadily unwinding his stake in the company.

Pacific has been plagued with problems recently. The company’s most recent annual report is chock-full of problems, including violations of some debt covenants and other shenanigans involving the company’s line of credit.

But the bigger problem is that you can’t sell ethanol for more than it costs to make it. One would think that would kill this business off entirely. But thanks to inexplicable government support and backward-thinking energy legislation, ethanol production will most likely continue despite the tough lessons we’ve learned.

So the big question remains — can someone successfully develop an alternative energy source that will actually make money?

Do the Math: 20,000 > 28

When you look at the numbers, one particular alternative energy source makes a whole lot of sense: algae. One acre of corn gives you 28 gallons of oil in a year. An acre of algae can yield anywhere between 20,000-100,000 gallons of oil per year. No wonder the updated 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act supports extracting fuels from algae.

While the algae fuel field is not completely crowded, multiple players are developing, harvesting and extracting systems that could one day be industry-standard designs. In as little as three years, we could see a powerful new energy industry.

Chevron and Shell have started exploring the possibilities of algae. There are also a few small companies that are working on the technology. Below are three penny stocks in the algae fuel business. All of these stocks have a market cap under $2 million, a share price under 10 cents, and can be found on the Pink Sheets and Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board:

• GreenShift Corporation (OTC:GERS)
• Nanoforce Inc. (PINK:NNFC)
• PetroSun Inc. (PINK:PSUD)

With the coming transition to alternative fuels, early investors in algae oil stand to claim some huge gains if this technology takes off…

Source: Algae Oil Penny Stocks Set to Soar

A front page story in the Journal discusses the surge of interest in anticipation of President-elect Obama’s aggressive green agenda. But an inside story reveals that some of the very same people who embrace green are fighting it tooth-and-nail in the name of the environment.

How does this make sense?

Because the hype and greed of the green bubble blocks out the more practical issues of the local politics that can stop a renewable energy project dead in its tracks. The lesson here for investors is that alternative energy is highly politicized and regardless of how much due diligence you apply, a company in your portfolio can sink under litigation costs heaped on by communities and special-interest groups around the country.

While the Journal cites in the first article Mr. Obama’s call for the U.S. to double the production of alternative energy in three years, the second article shows how communities are redoubling their efforts to block wind, solar and other renewable-energy projects that pose hazards to animal and landscape alike.

As the Journal reports, a project called Cape Wind has turned into a pitched legal battle between locals the developer, which wants to build 130 windmills across 25 square miles of federal waters off Cape Cod.

Proponents of the endeavor claim that Cape Wind reduce enough greenhouse emissions equivalent of 175,000 cars. Opponents don’t seem to really care, and instead believe that Cape will industrialize Nantucket Sounds and ruin fishing, recreation and property values.

This telling excerpt of the Journal article encapsulates the risks to investors running toward alternative energy…

“The conflict over Cape Wind illustrates a persistent problem for renewable power. Policy makers and environmentalists love the idea of generating clean power from the sun, wind, water and geothermal sources to displace imported oil. But at the local level, there is often opposition to the hardware needed to make renewable power work: big windmills, acres of solar panels and large-scale transmission lines.”

Investors must keep in mind that simply because the incoming president is gung-ho over green this is no free meal ticket to alternative-energy profits. If you insist on putting your money into a company, it’s vital that you somehow check the local dockets and newspapers to find any legal opposition that could stall or stop a big project you find so appetizing in a prospectus.