Time To Move On to the Next Bubble: Clean Energy

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Time To Move On to the Next Bubble: Clean Energy

I don't like to "talk my book" (makes me more than a bit uncomfortable), and I generally try to avoid mentioning specific companies or investments for that reason. I don't mind throwing out a few ideas occasionally, but I try to make sure that people know if it's something I have invested in so they understand there is a potential personal conflict within that post.



You get the prize for attention to detail Jim. I didn't think anybody read my stuff that closely.

For now my wife and I are still resident in the Arabian Gulf (that's where our furniture and other stuff is), but after 7 years an opportunity to relocate presented itself, and for a variety of personal reasons we have decided to ship our stuff back to Canada later this year. I am "at large" simply because during the extended transition I am moving about quite a bit between western North America, Europe and the Middle East/North Africa. It's also one reason that I am having trouble keeping up with iTulip at a time when the posting activity and information flow has increased a lot and the markets so volatile.

I expect to keep working internationally, but plan to scale back my travel (commercial air travel is now a pain in the azz, actually. I'll be posting something about that in the Rant/Rave section shortly) and base out of Canada where I can spend more time outdoors again.

Good, Greg, glad you shared that and are tolerant of my nosiness. I think it is interesting to know things about others, especially when they are "talking their books," just joshing about that, but I see nothing wrong with putting up specific answers to questions if one has specific answers, and personal disclosure is fair enough.

My background as I am sure it also applies to some others here was to frequently read journals and attend conferences where people who put forth data and opinions did so without wearing masks to hide their identities or affiliations. It provided at least a very basic step toward credibility. The obscurity of posters on the internet is just the opposite in that the most basic of steps toward credibility is obscured by avatars and screen names.

You seem to be in a better position than anyone else I recognize here to offer insight to what you perceive as ways to play the clean/alternate energy "bubble" that may exist in our futures. There are to me some rather keen arguments that such will play out. I encourage you to feel free to throw up companies that strike you as possible candidates whether you own them or not. People are responsible for doing their own due diligence.

Thank you.

[GRG55]

Re: Time To Move On to the Next Bubble: Clean Energy

Editor's Note: Mark Braly interviews Eric Janszen on The Next Bubble. Mark Braly was energy advisor to the mayor of Los Angeles during the 70s energy shock, author of the city's prize-winning energy plan, and president of a State of California non-profit corporation which made loans to renewable energy businesses. Now retired, he is a City of Davis, California, planning commissioner working on the city's zero-carbon program.

Time To Move On to the Next Bubble: Clean Energy
January 23, 2008 (Mark Braly - Renewable Energy Access)

The U.S. economy is a bubble economy -- going from bubble to crash to the next mania -- and the new bubble is likely to be clean energy, says Wall Street insider Eric Janszen in the cover story of the February Harper's.

We've seen two bubbles, internet and housing, within a decade, writes Janszen, "each creating trillions of dollars in fake wealth."

"There will and must be many more such booms, for without them the economy of the United States can no longer function. The bubble cycle has replaced the business cycle."

Here's why Janszen thinks the necessary next bubble will be clean energy. The new bubble sector must:

1. already be formed and growing as the previous bubble (housing) deflates. Check.

2. have in place or in the works legislation guaranteeing investors favorable tax treatment and other protections and advantages. Check.

3. be popular, "its name on the lips of government policymakers and journalists." Check.

4. "support hundreds or thousands of separate firms financed by not billions but trillions of dollars in new securities that Wall Street will create and sell." Is that coming? Janszen is quite expansive in his definition of clean energy, including a massive retooling of the country's transportation and power infrastructure.

Continued...

From the UK Sunday Times, another dot to connect to the string...

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3255969.ece

Lead the way in cutting carbon

MBAs in carbon management will become increasingly important as companies are forced to tackle climate change

Steve Farrar
January 27, 2008



JONATHAN HORSLEY has embarked on a radical career change. The 46-year-old engineer has left his post as director of a division of Zytek, the electric and hybrid vehicle specialist, to take a course that he expects will pitch him into the battle against climate change.

Horsley is among the first 12 students to sign up this month for the MBA in strategic carbon management at the University of East Anglia...

[housequake]

Re: Time To Move On to the Next Bubble: Clean Energy

I want to see people putting up some specific investment vehicles to be watching for opportunities to develop with regard to going long in them. Any ideas?

NALFX is a mutual fund focused on clean/renewable energy.

PBW and PUW are ETFs in the same vein.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Time To Move On to the Next Bubble: Clean Energy

NALFX is a mutual fund focused on clean/renewable energy.

PBW and PUW are ETFs in the same vein.

Good man, housequake, thank you.

[GRG55]

Re: Time To Move On to the Next Bubble: Clean Energy

Before this is done, the term "clean energy" is going to be stretched and reshaped in ways we probably can't imagine today. Look for some aspects of conventional energy to be "re-branded" as clean energy - natural gas would be one possibility.

Anyone expecting Big Oil to be "pushed aside" may be in for a big disappointment - the best of them will re-invent themselves (the early, and not yet successful, leader down this path is BP with its "Beyond Petroleum" sunflower)...

Here's another well anticipated and well documented (by bill and others here on iTulip) example of conventional energy (let's face it, fission has been around a long time) being "re-branded" (and in this case, rehabilitated?).

What struck me about the following article is the rapid pace at which the "re-branding" of nuclear is occuring, and who's being recruited into the effort. (The article quotes Dr. Patrick Moore. Some may be aware that Greenpeace was founded in the very early 1970's in my hometown of Vancouver, Canada. I can still remember reading co-founder Bob Hunter's weekly columns in the Vancouver Sun about the Amchitka nuclear test and the genesis of Greenpeace).

From the Denver Post:

The greening of nuclear power
A founder of Greenpeace has done an about-face on nuclear power, and now says building new plants to help the United States overcome its dependence on foreign oil for its energy needs is the way to go.


...Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the founders of well-known environmentalist group Greenpeace, was once a critic of nuclear power. He now believes that the impact of popular culture and unfounded fears have led to a multitude of misconceptions. "The fact that nuclear technology was first used to make the bomb had a deep psychological impact on the mass mind," he explains. "Even though I was doing a Ph.D. in science at the time I helped found Greenpeace, I made the same mistake, lumping nuclear energy in with nuclear weapons, when one is destructive and the other beneficial."

Moore goes on to say that fear is a common public reaction to issues like apocalyptic climate change, genetic modification and chemicals. Or, more specifically, fear of the invisible. "COb, DNA, radiation, and 'parts per billion' are all invisible," he says. "It is fairly easy to make up a story about invisible things because people can't see for themselves. Nuclear energy is by far the safest of the major energy technologies."

Another convert to nuclear energy is author Gwyneth Cravens, whose new book, "Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy," began as a pessimistic investigation into nuclear power's dubious future and ended as an ode to the wonders of nuclear fission. Cravens, who says her book is "fundamentally about prejudice based on wrong information," spent 10 years reporting from national laboratories, uranium mines and nuclear waste sites.

She claims, among other things:
• Nuclear power emits no gases and burns nothing.
• Toxic waste from coal-fired plants kills thousands of Americans annually, but 50 years of nuclear operation have not caused a single death among the public in this country.
• Uranium, when used as energy, is so dense that if "you got all of your electricity for your lifetime solely from nuclear power, your share of the waste would fit in a single soda can."
• Annual waste from a typical nuclear reactor could fit in the bed of a pickup truck and 50 years of waste from all the reactors in the country would fit in a single football field.
• "A person living within 50 miles of a nuclear plant receives less radiation from it in a year than you get from eating one banana."

Proponents of nuclear energy also say that reactors currently operating in the United States prevent emissions of 682 million tons of carbon dioxide every year. As Moore recently explained, the "104 nuclear plants that are operating across the United States are the equivalent of taking 100 million cars off the road." Nuclear energy, in other words, blows away any other alternative source of energy as viable and environmentally friendly.
Now, for those less concerned about the environment and more worried about our habit of obtaining oil from countries ruled by religious radicals, dictators and Norwegians, uranium can be found in the United States — as well as other semi-civilized places like Australia and Canada...

Link to full article:
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_8070598

I suppose being the birthplace of Greenpeace drops Canada down to "semi-civilized" in the eyes of the Denver media...:rolleyes:

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Time To Move On to the Next Bubble: Clean Energy

Here's another well anticipated and well documented (by bill and others here on iTulip) example of conventional energy (let's face it, fission has been around a long time) being "re-branded" (and in this case, rehabilitated?).

What struck me about the following article is the rapid pace at which the "re-branding" of nuclear is occuring, and who's being recruited into the effort. (The article quotes Dr. Patrick Moore. Some may be aware that Greenpeace was founded in the very early 1970's in my hometown of Vancouver, Canada. I can still remember reading co-founder Bob Hunter's weekly columns in the Vancouver Sun about the Amchitka nuclear test and the genesis of Greenpeace).

From the Denver Post:

The greening of nuclear power

A founder of Greenpeace has done an about-face on nuclear power, and now says building new plants to help the United States overcome its dependence on foreign oil for its energy needs is the way to go.

...Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the founders of well-known environmentalist group Greenpeace, was once a critic of nuclear power. He now believes that the impact of popular culture and unfounded fears have led to a multitude of misconceptions. "The fact that nuclear technology was first used to make the bomb had a deep psychological impact on the mass mind," he explains. "Even though I was doing a Ph.D. in science at the time I helped found Greenpeace, I made the same mistake, lumping nuclear energy in with nuclear weapons, when one is destructive and the other beneficial."

Moore goes on to say that fear is a common public reaction to issues like apocalyptic climate change, genetic modification and chemicals. Or, more specifically, fear of the invisible. "COb, DNA, radiation, and 'parts per billion' are all invisible," he says. "It is fairly easy to make up a story about invisible things because people can't see for themselves. Nuclear energy is by far the safest of the major energy technologies."

Another convert to nuclear energy is author Gwyneth Cravens, whose new book, "Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy," began as a pessimistic investigation into nuclear power's dubious future and ended as an ode to the wonders of nuclear fission. Cravens, who says her book is "fundamentally about prejudice based on wrong information," spent 10 years reporting from national laboratories, uranium mines and nuclear waste sites.

She claims, among other things:

• Nuclear power emits no gases and burns nothing.

• Toxic waste from coal-fired plants kills thousands of Americans annually, but 50 years of nuclear operation have not caused a single death among the public in this country.

• Uranium, when used as energy, is so dense that if "you got all of your electricity for your lifetime solely from nuclear power, your share of the waste would fit in a single soda can."

• Annual waste from a typical nuclear reactor could fit in the bed of a pickup truck and 50 years of waste from all the reactors in the country would fit in a single football field.

• "A person living within 50 miles of a nuclear plant receives less radiation from it in a year than you get from eating one banana."

Proponents of nuclear energy also say that reactors currently operating in the United States prevent emissions of 682 million tons of carbon dioxide every year. As Moore recently explained, the "104 nuclear plants that are operating across the United States are the equivalent of taking 100 million cars off the road." Nuclear energy, in other words, blows away any other alternative source of energy as viable and environmentally friendly.

Now, for those less concerned about the environment and more worried about our habit of obtaining oil from countries ruled by religious radicals, dictators and Norwegians, uranium can be found in the United States — as well as other semi-civilized places like Australia and Canada...

Link to full article:

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_8070598

I suppose being the birthplace of Greenpeace drops Canada down to "semi-civilized" in the eyes of the Denver media...:rolleyes:

Just bot 300 shrs. NLR. it's at 30.60 [edit31.30ish] off from high 45. Plan on holding it for a long time since it decays so slowly.

[GRG55]

Re: Time To Move On to the Next Bubble: Clean Energy

Just bot 300 shrs. NLR. it's at 30.60 off from high 45. Plan on holding it for a long time since it decays so slowly.

Thanks Jim. Interesting way to play nuclear. I simply cannot keep up with all the ETFs so this was great info. I see it's got a mix of nuclear biased utilities, some mining companies (producers only it seems) and suppliers to the sector.

I bought a small position in General Electric on Wed last week as a way to play nuclear and the entire alt energy/infrastructure thing. Still concerned about it's finance sector exposure, but this seems to have been pretty heavily discounted now and the stock "looks cheap" when one is buying it with Canadian $. I think America is "on sale" unfortunately.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Time To Move On to the Next Bubble: Clean Energy

Thanks Jim. Interesting way to play nuclear. I simply cannot keep up with all the ETFs so this was great info. I see it's got a mix of nuclear biased utilities, some mining companies (producers only it seems) and suppliers to the sector.

I bought a small position in General Electric on Wed last week as a way to play nuclear and the entire alt energy/infrastructure thing. Still concerned about it's finance sector exposure, but this seems to have been pretty heavily discounted now and the stock "looks cheap" when one is buying it with Canadian $. I think America is "on sale" unfortunately.

Greg,

I began following NLR, GEX, EVX and MOO, I guess after you mentioned MOO. I think they all are run by the same outfit.

PHO is another ETF I follow, water.

[housequake]

Re: Time To Move On to the Next Bubble: Clean Energy

Greg,

I began following NLR, GEX, EVX and MOO, I guess after you mentioned MOO. I think they all are run by the same outfit.

PHO is another ETF I follow, water.

I've been tracking NLR and PHO for awhile as well, though I've been very wary about taking any new positions until things settle down a bit. I'm still spooked, but it's encouraging to see an iTuliper take the plunge.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Time To Move On to the Next Bubble: Clean Energy

I've been tracking NLR and PHO for awhile as well, though I've been very wary about taking any new positions until things settle down a bit. I'm still spooked, but it's encouraging to see an iTuliper take the plunge.

Be careful, I am a wild and crazy guy. It's great to pick bottoms, but invariably when things are getting the stuffings kicked out of them, I am too scared to buy. Usually whatever I buy goes lower immediately. Greg bringing up the capitulation of an Greenpeacer at least made me look at NLR right then, and I'll settle for the moment for it being off ~33%, and hell, it may go down to being off 60-70%. If one has some cash one can buy some more.

[bill]

Re: Time To Move On to the Next Bubble: Clean Energy

Nuclear power development will be controlled threw distribution of enriched uranium fuel.
Politically correct, in the name of security and packaged plant technology with uranium fuel guarantees determines who gets nuclear power.
Energy security!
Policy makers:

http://www.nti.org/b_aboutnti/b1_board.html

http://www.gnep.energy.gov/

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/...sdonation.html

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008_01-02/fuelcycle.asp

Recent Davos thinkers:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ex...d-250108.shtml

Proposal for global nuclear fuel insurance fund
25 January 2008
The WEF suggests that some countries considering introducing nuclear energy as part of their energy mix (including Turkey, Vietnam and Egypt) may be deterred due to concerns about access to enriched uranium. It says that such countries fear being "blocked in the future by the six states which currently produce enriched uranium on a commercial basis: France, Germany, the Netherlands, Russia, the United Kingdom and the USA." To avoid this, they may decide to start their own uranium enrichment programms, which would raise proliferation concerns.

The report suggests that one solution could be to develop an international "nuclear fuel insurance fund". It says, "Turning the risk of the spread of nuclear technologies into an opportunity to create a sustainable framework for the production of safe, clean and secure electrical power should be a major objective of global policy." The report adds, "The innovative use of financial markets may offer a way to achieve it."

report:http://www.weforum.org/en/initiative...risk/index.htm

[GRG55]

Re: Time To Move On to the Next Bubble: Clean Energy

Nuclear power development will be controlled threw distribution of enriched uranium fuel.
Politically correct, in the name of security and packaged plant technology with uranium fuel guarantees determines who gets nuclear power.
Energy security!
Policy makers:

http://www.nti.org/b_aboutnti/b1_board.html

http://www.gnep.energy.gov/

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/...sdonation.html

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008_01-02/fuelcycle.asp

Recent Davos thinkers:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ex...d-250108.shtml

report:http://www.weforum.org/en/initiative...risk/index.htm

I understand that General Electric is developing a strategy to sell its nuclear reactor technology with the fuel supply. Not sure if it will do this through some sort of joint ventures or by direct involvement in processing capability.

[santafe2]

Re: Time To Move On to the Next Bubble: Clean Energy

Here are the solar energy stocks mentioned in link.

The current solar leaders include:

FSLR – First Solar
STP – SunTech Power Holdings Co.
JASO – JA Solar Holdings Co.
CY – Cypress Semiconductor Corp.
The second tier ‘high fliers’ include:
CSIQ - Canadian Solar Inc.
AKNS - Akeena Solar Inc.
CSUN - China Sunergy Co.

I've worked in the renewable energy business for the last four years and have a reasonable understanding of three of these companies as we either buy a significant portion of their product or compete directly against them. My expertise is in photovoltaics but I'm familiar with solar thermal, wind and stationary bio energy, (as opposed to bio-fuels).

In the order listed above:
FSLR: Excellent company. First to market with a mass produced non-silicon photo-sensitive product, (CdTe). Their PE is over the top but their costs are low, (about $1US a watt), as they've not been held hostage by the silicon cell producers. They're ramping up production nicely. While the power density of CdTe is quite low, about 40% the best crystalline product, it's temperature coefficient is better than any silicon panel. That is, if you're space constrained it's not good but if it gets really hot in your location, perfect product. Think Arizona, Nevada. There will likely be a downturn in the growth of PV installations by the end of this year as a worldwide recession puts downward pressure on most products. FSLR is down 40-50% from the peak, they might be a great buy at some point.

STP - Excellent solar panels. We've sold and installed 10s of thousands of these without one failure. If they continue to grow their brand as they have over the last two years, they should be a good investment sometime over the next year or so.

AKNS - Basically a solar sales and installation company. Labor is getting squeezed as there is downward pressure on overall installation prices. There are new players, mostly in California and most are VC funded, (Google money, Ebay money, etc.). These groups are focused on growth not profitability. AKNS is caught in this dynamic. Smart people but I'm not sure the business model will work.

[jk]

Re: Time To Move On to the Next Bubble: Clean Energy

thanks for that input, santafe2.

[touchring]

Re: Time To Move On to the Next Bubble: Clean Energy

Is nuclear energy clean energy? I think nuclear energy has good potential.

Anyone has an opinion on Areva? I got a recommendation on this stock on another forum, but i'm sceptical due to the high P/E. http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q?s=CEI.PA