But a year ago, the 81-year old chairman of BP Capital spent his own money to buy prime time on major networks and mobilized an “army” of believers in order to get the word out about the dangers of continued dependence on foreign oil.

Earlier this month, Pickens appeared on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” to discuss the progress of the “Pickens Plan,”which essentially seeks to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil through a combination of wind-generated power and natural gas powered vehicles. The goal: Drastically reducing or eliminating the need for foreign oil in as little as 10 years.

His timing was perfect, as oil prices shot to all-time highs around $150 a year ago. The plan garnered a lot of attention. And to his credit, over the past 12 months, nobody else has articulated a plan as clearly and succinctly as Pickens’ has.

Today, however, oil prices are down some 54% and the U.S. is sliding deeper into recession. Is shutting off foreign oil still a concern? Have we made any progress in doing so? Are we any closer to a national energy plan?

The short answers are:

1. Definitely yes
2. Yes
3. Almost

Let me explain…

Get Rid Of The Rogues… And Pocket $400 Billion

While the price of oil has declined dramatically over the past year, our dependency on foreign oil is as great as ever. We still get over 70% of our oil from other countries, and it’s a huge security issue.

While the transfer of wealth – dollars out for oil in – is less, it’s still a huge net outflow of nearly $400 billion annually.

There’s no question that keeping that money here will not only have a positive effect on our trade balance, it’ll make a huge difference in the U.S. economy – a “free” $400 billion annual stimulus package, if you will.

Alternatively, according to Pickens, “If we go 10 more years with no plan, we’ll be importing 75% of our oil and it will cost us $300 a barrel.”

Even if he’s wrong by 50% – which is unlikely given increasing world demand – it’s still a big problem. So how do we get rid of the rogues?

The “Anti-Oil”: U.S. Natural Gas Reserves Soaring

In terms of our progress in displacing foreign oil, there’s only one quick way to do it: Replace it with natural gas.

The Potential Gas Committee – the nation’s authority on natural gas supplies – recently issued a report that showed a substantial increase in U.S. natural gas reserves.

The report indicated that the nation’s gas reserves have increased by 25% to 2,074 trillion cubic feet (tcf) from 1,532 tcf in 2006 – the last time the report was issued. It was the largest increase in the 44-year history of the committee and its language reflected that: “[The report] shows an exceptionally strong and optimistic gas supply picture for the nation.”

That’s an understatement. By 2030, it projects a supply of nearly one hundred years – the most in the world.

John B. Curtis, a geology professor at the Colorado School of Mines and the report’s principal author, said,“New and advanced exploration, well drilling and completion technologies are allowing us increasingly better access to domestic gas resources – especially unconventional gas – which, not that long ago, were considered impractical or uneconomical to pursue.”

The findings have shifted the focus onto natural gas as a possible transition fuel as we move from coal and oil to solar, wind, geothermal and other non-carbon sources of power. It couldn’t have come at a more opportune time.

A National Energy Plan: Slow And Steady, But Are We Winning The Race?

The best thing the government can do to move us away from fossil fuels is to provide funding and tax incentives to develop and use something else (and then get the hell out of the way). And it appears as though Congress is trying to do just that with natural gas.

H.R. 1835, known as the “New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act of 2009,” amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to create jobs and encourage alternative energy investments.

Here’s what this act provides:

• An excise tax credit through 2027 for alternative fuels and motor vehicles involving compressed or liquefied natural gas (LNG).

• An income tax credit through 2027 for vehicles powered by compressed or LNG.

• A new tax credit for the production of vehicles fueled by natural gas or LNG.

• A tax credit for alternative fuel vehicle refueling property expenditures for refueling property relating to compressed or LNG and allow an increased credit for such property.

• Requires 50% of all new vehicles purchased or placed in service by the U.S. government by December 31, 2014, to be capable of operating on compressed or LNG.

• Authorizes the Secretary of Energy to make grants to manufacturers of light and heavy-duty natural gas vehicles for the development of engines that reduce emissions, improve performance and efficiency, and lower cost.

Now before I get a dozen e-mails pointing out that natural gas is just a different fossil fuel, let me head them off. There’s no argument there. But here’s where it’s very beneficial…

The Benefits Of Natural Gas – And How To Play It

Natural gas is a much cleaner burning fuel, produces less carbon emissions and, most importantly, it’s found here in abundance. It’s a walk in the park to produce new cars and trucks that run on it, and convert older ones as well.

And if it helps free of the grip of rogue nations around the world in 10 years or less, then I’m all for it. We’ll all be better off economically, and we’ll all have greater piece of mind.

How do you play it? Take a look at Clean Energy Fuels Corporation (Nasdaq: CLNE), a provider of natural gas as a vehicle fuel, primarily for fleet use in the United States and Canada. It designs, builds and operates natural gas fueling stations, and provides financing for natural gas vehicles. It and others in the sector will undoubtedly benefit from this legislation when it’s passed.

Source:  Energy Independence: The Progress, The Problems… And A Way To Profit

{Editor’s Note: One year ago, oil prices were atrecord highs… the U.S. political scene was gridlocked amid the presidential election… and a fellow named T. Boone Pickens was promoting a bold new plan to wean the U.S. off its oil dependency and towards wind power and natural gas instead (and Pickens is an oilman). Today, oil prices are trading around $68, so where does the “Pickens Plan” stand now? Investment U columnist and infrastructure specialist David Fessler reports on whether cheaper oil prices have dampened the drive towards greater energy independence, plus a way to play a natural gas-powered future.  Martin Denholm, Managing Editor, Smart Profits Report}

But what might the new administration mean for more traditional – and more reliable –energy sources?

Oil is always the first energy source to spring to mind. But it’s hardly a solo act – coal and nuclear make up the other two-thirds of the top fuel trio. Coal delivers 50% of U.S. electricity needs, and nuclear power brings another 20% to the table.

The cold truth is that demand for energy of all types – and especially electricity – is going to keep advancing, domestically and worldwide. And developing alternatives to coal and nuclear will take time. For instance, tying wind and solar into the existing power grid will be enormously expensive and is likely to pose massive technical and engineering problems.

In fact, according to the International Energy Agency, renewable energy isn’t likely to make a meaningful dent in meeting the world’s energy needs before 2030, if then.

And regardless where the power comes from, our appetite for electricity will continue to skyrocket. Across the planet, overall electricity consumption is expected to double by 2030, increasing by 17 trillion kilowatt hours. While electricity demand will “only” increase by 50% in the U.S. market by 2030, demand will increase 400% in China and six-fold in India.

Our research indicates that President Obama will have very little flexibility in solving our short-term energy problems once he’s sworn into office next month. While he may prefer the environmentally friendly alternatives, most of those replacements are far from fully developed.

The bottom line: Obama’s apparent preference for renewable energy aside, coal and nuclear power are fully deployed, and in widespread use, meaning they’ll remain the backbone of our energy sector in the New Year – and for years to come.

Even so, it’s well worth factoring in all the possible players as we examine energy-sector outlook – and the accompanying potential profit plays – for the next 12 months.

King Coal Reigns Supreme

When it comes to future energy profits for investors, coal and nuclear will continue to be the “dream team” for years to come. Coal will provide the answer to our short-term and intermediate energy needs.  It’s plentiful, it’s cheaper than other available alternatives, and a big percentage of the world’s power plants burn it.

Nuclear power offers a long-term solution to energy shortages and a clean solution to global warming, as well. Uranium-fueled nuclear plants are cheap to operate, can run for long periods without refueling, and cause little pollution.

While there is widespread distaste for coal-fired power plants that spew billions of tons of carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the air, there’s no doubt coal will continue to be the dominant player in the electricity game for some time to come.

A full 50% of the electricity U.S. consumers use is generated by coal, and coal is king in the rest of the world, as well. According to the IEA, coal accounted for 42% of all worldwide electricity consumption in 2005.
But get this – the agency predicts coal use will explode by 73% over the next 20 years. That’s the largest projected percentage increase of all energy sources.
As you might suspect, China and India use 45% of world’s coal and will be responsible for 80% of that increase. China, alone, uses more coal than the United States, Japan and Europe combined.  China is utterly dependent on coal to run its factories and assembly plants, with coal supplying 80% of its electricity. The Red Dragon also is the world’s top producer of steel, a process that’s also a big burner of coal.

But while China is coal’s largest consumer and producer, the United States controls 27% of the world’s proven reserves, the biggest-single percentage on the planet.  That puts this country front and center on the worldwide coal stage, and President-elect Obama’s energy policy in the spotlight.

The president plays a pivotal role in shaping the nation’s energy policy, naming top officials at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Obama has proposed an economy-wide cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050.  His system – which would set an overall emissions limit, then require polluters to buy allowances at public auction – would increase electricity rates and discourage coal consumption in the U.S. market. President-elect Obama even has stated that any utilities building coal-fired plants could go bankrupt buying pollution allowances.

And on Capitol Hill, newly emboldened Democrats recently tackled global warming and other environmental problems by choosing Sen. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to head the House of Representative’s Energy and Commerce panel.  Waxman has already signed onto legislation that would ban any new coal-fired power plants that aren’t built using new technologies that capture carbon dioxide and store it underground, a key part of the Obama energy plan.

Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, said he believes Obama will be pragmatic about the need to keep coal in the nation’s energy mix.

“He presumably would be sensitive to the impacts of energy policies given the perilous state of the economy,” Popovich said.

But while U.S. utilities may eventually be forced to tighten emissions rules and increase rates, Obama’s renewable energy plans will have very little impact on U.S. coal producers in the near future.

The world needs coal. We have it. And we’re going to sell it.

In the first half of 2008, U.S. coal exports increased by 13 million short tons, or 50%, over first-half 2007 shipments, according to the IEA.  Strong global demand for coal, combined with supply disruptions in several key coal exporting countries (Australia, South Africa and China), were the primary factors behind the increase.

But lately, coal prices, along with the prices of other fossil fuels, have suffered from the global economic crisis, and from a resurgent U.S. dollar. An 80% decline in global shipping rates has also fostered competition from other exporters, like Australia, which can now ship farther and compete with U.S. exporters.

As a result, the price of Appalachian Coal on the New York Mercantile Exchange (CME) has fallen to less than $80 a ton from $143 in July.

This will have a negative impact on coal producers until the world economy is able to gather itself back up and build up a new head of steam.

But don’t expect the slump to last long.  China’s economy is getting a shot in the arm from a gigantic $586 billion stimulus package, cementing growth expectations for 2009.  Expect U.S.exports to accelerate when that kicks in, probably in the second half of 2009.

Since the stock market usually leads economic indicators by six-to-nine months, right now is a good time to be looking at candidates for your investing dollar. But you should be cautious about pulling the trigger.  Watch construction activity in China – especially steel demand in the late spring – for the first signs of a rebound in coal prices.

When you think things are ready to take off, Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU) and Arch Coal Inc. (ACI) – the largest U.S. producers – are worth a look. For those who like to play a basket of shares, the Market Vectors Coal exchange traded fund (KOL), or ETF, provides the desired diversification. All three securities are trading at discounts of at least 80% from their July highs, and currently trade at bargain basement multiples.

If you want a coal play that bets directly on China, Money Morning Investment Director Keith Fitz-Gerald likes Yanzhou Coal Mining Co. Ltd. (ADR: YZC), one of China’s biggest coal suppliers. It produces lots of high-grade, low-sulfur coal, which burns cleaner and therefore fetches a premium price. The company boasts profit margins of 22%, when the industry averages half that.  The company profits are up a blistering 364% in the year’s first three quarters, compared with a year ago.  The stock trades at only three times earnings and has a dividend yield of 4.3%.

Nuclear Power: It Struggles in the U.S., but Thrives Abroad

Nuclear power is attractive to the energy industry because it produces electricity on a predictable, 24-hour basis – earning it the industry sobriquet of “base load” power. Coal and hydroelectric plants are the only other power sources that also rate that label. Such alternatives as wind, solar or biofuels do not.

During its term, the Bush administration tried to spark a “renaissance” in the construction of nuclear power plants.  And during his presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain stood firmly behind the industry’s hopes of building 45 new reactors by 2030.

Interest in new types of reactors seemed to hint at least at the beginnings of a new start. But President-elect Obama has been lukewarm on nuclear.  He acknowledges that nuclear is one of several viable components of the nation’s energy portfolio – the current 104-plant fleet provides 20% of America’s electricity – but has questioned its safety while emphasizing a need to diversify the nation’s energy mix with more wind, solar and other renewable sources.

“That’s sort of like my wife saying she’d support divorce under certain situations,” says William Kovacs, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s vice president of environment, technology, and public affairs.

In fact, the Barack Obama/Joe Biden New Energy for America Plan, while recognizing that nukes provide 70% of our non-carbon-generated electricity, says that “before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage and proliferation.”  It goes on to say that the team of President-elect Obama and incoming Vice President Joe Biden “do not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site as a long-term repository for spent nuclear designed for long-term storage.  In any case, the earliest the storage site could open would be 2017, and that was before Republicans lost control of the Senate.

With Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., firmly opposed to nuclear waste storage in his home state – and with the Obama administration ready to hold the industry’s feet to the regulatory fire – any plans to expand the nuclear industry in the United States now face a high hurdle.

But nuclear proponents are hardly impotent.  The Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s most powerful lobbying group, helped craft the Energy Policy Act of 2005 with more than $12 billion in subsidies for nukes.

Maintaining nuclear energy’s current 20% share of generation would require building three reactors every two years starting in 2016, based on U.S. Department of Energy forecasts.  Right now, some 17 companies and consortia are pursuing licenses for more than 30 nuclear power plants with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

But the last operating license for a nuclear plant in the United States was issued in 1978, and the approval process takes a minimum of 24 months after site approval, which can take years.  Expect lots of public comment and infighting in Washington, as applications wind their way through the approval process at the NRC.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world is racing ahead with plans to up the ante in the nuclear power game. There are currently 440 nuclear reactors in 31 countries that generate about 16% of the world’s electricity.

Uranium-fueled nuclear energy is rapidly gaining global acceptance as a clean, reliable alternative to such dirty-burning fossil fuels as coal and oil. In a twin bid to combat global warming and keep up with soaring demand for electricity, countries are rushing to build nuclear power plants. Under current projections, 630 reactors will be operating in 55 countries by 2030.

It’s the new technologies those reactors are designed around that are aimed at allaying the public’s perception about the safety of nuclear power.  Toshiba Plant & System Services, which has built 112 plants in the past 12 years (more than any other company), is working on a “mininuke,” according to Forbes magazine. Called the “4S” (short for Super-Safe, Small and Simple), it uses a bath of molten sodium to produce steam twice as hot as steam from water-cooled reactors.  The 4S can crank out as much as 50 megawatts of power, easily enough to fire up a small factory, or to service an entire town that’s located off the main power grid.

On top of that, the mininuke can go 30 years without refueling, as opposed to typical reactors, which must be fed every 18 months. And the 4S will be safer, because the reactor core is deep underground, well protected against a terrorist attack or earthquakes.

China and South Africa are working on so-called “pebble-bed reactors,” one version of which is filled with 100,000 billiard-ball-sized spheres of coated uranium that are cooled by helium. That eliminates the need for enormous pressurized water-cooling systems and million-dollar containment domes, making them virtually meltdown-proof.

U.S. firms are also on the trail of smaller and safer designs. A Santa Fe, NM company called Hyperion Power Generation Inc., is working on a hot-tub sized design, which eliminates the need for the notoriously unstable uranium control rods. U.S. giant General Electric Co. (GE) is working on new, more efficient designs, as well.

No matter how you slice it, the fuel for the reactors in those plants all depend on a scarce commodity – uranium.  Flat out, there’s just not enough “yellow cake” to go around.  It takes seven to 10 years to transform a uranium discovery into a fully operational mine. With that kind of lag time, it’s clearly almost impossible for supply to keep up with demand.

Until recently, the market reflected the scarcity, rising as high as $137 a pound in 2007. But lately, despite the global shortages, uranium prices – in sympathy with other commodity prices – have nosedived.

Prices have fallen 40% this year, leading to a sharp decline in the share prices of mining companies, and eviscerating the financing for extraction projects. In the last month alone, six uranium mines in western Colorado and Utah were either put on hold or closed.

Some experts lay the blame for this current credit squeeze squarely at the feet of hedge funds – who they blame for buying up uranium – and banks no longer willing to lend money.

“Hedge funds were selling off their uranium to raise cash, and the prices just plunged,” said George E.L. Glasier, chief executive officer of Energy Fuels Inc., a Canadian junior miner that recently put a Colorado mine project on hold as part of a “capital preservation” strategy brought on by the credit crunch.

Uranium prices fell to $75 early this year, and fell as low as $44 this fall.  The spot price now is $55.

With the worldwide growth in the industry – and a classic supply/demand imbalance in the making – someone is eventually going to have to pay the price.  History shows when uranium prices move higher, uranium stocks almost always hitch a ride North. So when uranium prices advance – most likely to new highs – expect mining stocks to rise in virtual lock step.

But notwithstanding global growth – for now, at least – Obama’s energy plan and the mothballing of mines makes any uranium play a long-term proposition.

Besides Toshiba (PINK:TOSBF), the stocks to consider include Cameco Corp. (CCJ), the largest U.S. producer; and General Electric, which has a presence in the commercial nuclear power market here and overseas. Also, take a look at Rio Tinto PLC (RTP) and BHP Billiton Ltd. (BHP), huge international mining firms with large uranium deposits.  Each of these firms would stand to reap substantial profits from a resurgent price in yellow cake.

Outlook 2009 – and Beyond

However, regardless of what uranium does, coal is still the 800-pound gorilla in the energy world. In the United States, no matter how lofty our environmental intentions may be, it’s unlikely coal will be regulated out of existence anytime soon. That’s especially true overseas, where coal is playing a crucial role, fueling the transformation of such countries as China and India from “emerging markets” into first-order powerhouse economies. Given that, the world market simply can’t replace coal anytime soon, either.

As for nuclear power, safety improvements and other technological solutions make nuclear energy a viable energy source for the long term, eventually grabbing a bigger piece of the energy pie – especially overseas.

The bottom line: The economic outlook for both coal and nuclear power is upbeat.  Investors might look at both energy plays when considering how to allocate their portfolio – for the New Year and beyond.

Source: Surprise! Coal & Nuclear Power are Keys to Obama’s Energy Plan

This from Smart Profits Report:

The winds of change are coming…

Not only does that include Barack Obama taking office in a little under two months time, it could also include a natural energy resource receiving an increasing amount of attention.

Last year was a breakthrough year for the U.S. wind industry, with total wind-power capacity rising by 45%. That accounted for 30% of all new power production.

And if you think wind made impressive advances when an oilman was in the White House, just wait until President Barack Obama takes office.

During the presidential election, Obama made renewable and alternative energy a key campaign issue, sounding off controversially against the continued use of coal-fired power plants.

“If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can,” he said during the campaign. “It’s just that it will bankrupt them.”

Global… And Growing At An Accelerated Pace

Recent legislation mandates that at least 15% of U.S. electricity come from green sources by 2020. But under the Obama administration, if all goes according to plan, expect to see calls for 10% of our electricity to come from green sources by 2012 and 25% by 2025.

The U.S isn’t alone in its call to clean up the environment this way. China’s new energy plans, released in September 2007, included a push to generate 10% of its power from wind by 2010 and 15% by 2015.

And the EU has mandated that 20% of its energy comes from renewable resources like wind by 2020. In some places, such as Denmark, that goal is already a reality. And across Europe, efforts are already well under way to ensure that wind turbines account for roughly one-third of all new generating capacity installed in the next few years. That means providing electricity for 90 million people by 2010.

The wind power movement isn’t limited to large countries like China or to rich countries like the United States. It’s global.

North Africa, the Middle East and certain South American countries have all gotten into the act. The first two regions increased wind energy installations by 42% last year.

And a recent study showed that Egypt, with its strong wind activity in the Suez Gulf, could host 20,000 megawatts of wind farms.

And then there’s Brazil, which has 14 projects totaling 107 megawatts scheduled for completion by the end of the year, and another 900+ megawatts slated for 2009.

This Investment Has Both Power And Potential

And it’s not just governments that are embracing wind power. Even oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens is getting behind this alternative energy trend. He’s wagering $12 billion on an area spanning the Texas panhandle that, when finished, will be the world’s largest wind farm. He’s already ordered 667 turbines from General Electric.

Why has this legendary oil investor hitched his future to wind? Because he knows that this alternative energy source is our best shot at reducing our dependence on foreign oil. In one year, a single 3-megawatt wind turbine produces as much energy as 12,000 barrels of oil – without consuming any natural resources or emitting any pollution or greenhouse gases.

The good news, as Pickens points out, is that the United States is the Saudi Arabia of wind power.

The Great Plains is home to the greatest wind energy potential in the world, and Pickens envisions a string of wind facilities stretching from Texas to North Dakota capable of producing 20% of the nation’s electricity.

But right now, even despite these huge advances, wind power still accounts for a tiny fraction of the world’s energy needs: About 1% in the United States and 1.3% globally.

That’s all set to change, though…

Where Wind Energy Is Going Next

According to the Department of Energy, wind energy could generate 20% of U.S. electricity by 2030. Compared to today, that’s a 40-bagger industry-wide. This means that a few of the best and the brightest wind stocks could easily rise 100-to-1 before it’s all over.

You can do the math. Unless someone discovers the fountain of youth, I doubt you’ll find any industry in the world with as much growth potential.

Check out these other wind facts…

• Wind energy grew 667% between 2000 and 2008, from 2,554 megawatts of installed U.S. capacity to 19,600. In that time, in fact, the United States became the world leader in wind power generation, outpacing Germany.

• A 2005 NASA study pegged the power of the global wind supply at 72 terawatts, or roughly five times global power consumption. That means there is virtually no limit to the degree from which the world can harness this 100% clean, 100% free and 100% renewable resource. It’s only a matter of time, and the clock is ticking.

• The demand for wind power isn’t only strong and globally pervasive, in most nations, it’s been written into law.

• Nearly three-dozen U.S. states that have mandated that utilities buy an increasing amount of their electricity from renewable resources. They literally have to buy wind turbines. And that legal obligation is worthwhile, too. As part of the recent $700 billion TARP bailout, Congress extended a $0.02 per kilowatt-hour production tax credit. That means the cash goes straight to their bottom line instead of to Uncle Sam. Both these factors will continue to provide a strong incentive for wind power.

The changing of the White House guard takes place in less than two months’ time, with Obama practically vowing to turn the White House “green.” Coal power is out. Wind power is in. And the wind industry will likely be the focal point of government mandated energy initiatives for the next few decades.

We’ve pinpointed a select group of FOUR investments that will benefit the most when an unprecedented infusion of government cash is pumped into this industry.

These companies are immune to nearly all outside economic forces and have their sales orders on file in amounts that could set them – and you – up for years to come. Click here to find out how to profit from wind power.

Source: With A Changing Of The Political Guard, Now Is The Time To Harness The Profit Potential Of Wind Power

Google, Chevron and Goldman are all betting that this prediction is correct. This from Bloomberg:

Unlike photovoltaic solar panels that convert sunlight to electricity, solar thermal focuses sunrays with mirrors to heat oil in glass pipes to about 700 degrees Fahrenheit (370 degrees Celsius). The oil turns water to steam, which spins an electric turbine. A solar thermal unit that begins operation in 2010 will produce power at 14.2 cents a kilowatt hour, almost triple the 4.8 cents for a plant using pulverized coal, the Energy Information Administration estimates.

Costs for solar thermal may fall as low as 3.5 cents a kilowatt hour by 2020, according to a report commissioned by the U.S. Energy Department. Meanwhile, coal expenses may rise. Congress is considering limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. The purchase of pollution permits may be required under a measure the Senate will begin debating next month.

Chevron, Goldman Sachs, FPL, PG&E and other companies have filed more than 50 applications with the Bureau of Land Management to lease government-owned desert property for solar power systems … Google’s philanthropic division put $10 million into eSolar, a start-up in Pasadena, California. Dan Reicher, a former Energy Department official who manages the unit’s climate and energy initiatives, said there will be more such investments.

The PowerShares Clean Energy ETF (PBW) has more than $1.5bn in assets and is one of the most popular ways to invest in solar, biomass, wind, and geothermal energy, says Brian Hunt in Daily Wealth.

“Common sense tells us when the holy trinity of fossil fuels – crude oil, coal, and natural gas – rise in price, companies that provide cleaner substitutes should also rise in price.

“PBW’s only been around for three years […] But with oil approaching $130 a barrel and clean energy stocks out of favor, expect a rally from the ‘treehugger-approved’ companies of the world.”

“Solar panels won’t be accepted en masse unless the economics of it makes sense,” says Charles Delvalle in Investor’s Daily Edge. “Sure, adoption is growing. But it won’t be mainstream until everyone can afford it. The same goes for wind power.

“With so many solutions not making any economic sense, why is adoption skyrocketing? You can thank the government and their incentives. States are ramping up incentives for clean energy production (like California’s $3.3 billion solar initiative). If it weren’t for government incentives adoption would drastically drop.

“When you combine these government incentives with the whole culture change that’s going on, you have a recipe for amazing growth.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

My primary weather experience was in a windswept place, where even calm days had an intermittent 30 mph “breeze.”

And maybe that’s why I can’t get excited about storage for wind-turbine energy. The idea that the wind might stop blowing for an extended period of time and you may need to rely on stored power, while evident to me on a daily (or at least weekly) basis out here on the East Coast, is antithetical to deep-seated instinct.

Despite my insistent, if illogical, argument against the idea, I am assured by those in the business that, yes, wind turbines do sometimes stop moving. And when they do, batteries to store and release back excess energy from earlier, more blustery, hours is a necessity, which is where NGK Insulators (NGKIF: Pink Sheets) comes in.

Alternative Energy Stocks: Sodium and sulfur

NGK, a Japanese industrial ceramics manufacturer, just began selling nontoxic sodium-sulfur batteries with 4.3 times the capacity of their highly toxic lead-acid counterparts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Picking the Best Trades… Trade After Trade

Ian Cooper is the real deal. Since joining our team of experts, Ian has initiated 20 trades in the Pure Energy Trader.

He’s hit 15 winners with 5 losers. Do that math – that’s a winning percentage of 75%. And every trade – even including the losers – is averaging +41%. Pure Energy Trader subscribers are nearly doubling their money every 2 trades!

Don’t miss out on the next winning trade.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Japan Wind Development Company, which helped NDK create the batteries specifically for the wind-farm industry, is trying them out at its Rokkasho wind farm, and analysts think the batteries could generate 13 times the profit for the farm during peak hours if they work as expected.

The NAS batteries, named for the elemental symbols of their two main components (Na for sodium, S for sulfur), offer wind farmers the chance to store energy generated during non-peak hours, meaning much higher profits when they sell it at peak-hour prices.

And it’s a good thing, too. The batteries cost $2.9 million per megawatt of storage capacity. But that could be worth it if wind farms can efficiently save the power they build up at night to sell to electric companies during the day, when energy goes for a much higher price.

The NAS batteries are the most “dense” on the market, meaning they store the most amount of energy in the least amount of space. And they require uniform, high-grade ceramic that, NGK says, it, alone, has been successful in producing. In other words, they’re the most efficient batteries in the industry, and only NGK makes them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Biggest Solar Energy Project Ever

Using a source officially discovered by NASA in 1978, a small California company has perfected a way to harness the “Earth’s Energy Budget.” which NASA has measured at 174 trillion kilowatts per day.

Yes, I said 174 trillion kilowatts each day. That’s enough energy to power New York City for 1,827 years.

And this tiny California solar company, recently featured on NBC’s Today Show, just figured out how to harness this energy. In less than a decade, these systems will be on nearly every home and office building in North America. Learn more…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Alternative Energy Stocks: Trial runs

Xcel Energy (XEL: NYSE), the largest wind-power company in the U.S., is testing out NAS batteries. And the country’s largest coal-electricity producer American Electric Power Company (AEP: NYSE) just ordered 7 megawatts of storage from NGK in hopes that the batteries will smooth out its current power production. Success in these companies could mean energy storage may soon have a new leader.

NGK trades on the Tokyo Stock Exchange, and it has a pink sheet listing in the States. But I’m not willing to recommend the company just yet.

Alternative Energy Stocks: 1% is not enough

NGK is still primarily an industrial ceramics company. And its battery division, although profitable for the first time in 2007, currently makes up less than 1% of the company’s total earnings.

Estimates for the fiscal year ended March 31 put the company’s NAS battery division at a profit of 500 million yen (about $4.96 million), while the company’s total profit will probably be around 67 billion yen ($664 million). If NGK’s new batteries do catch on, the division will have to ramp up sales quite a bit before it makes a sizeable impact on the company’s bottomline.