Fossil Fuels vs. Green Energy: What's a Better Investment? 20 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
By Irwin Greenstein
Energy investors may find themselves at odds in weighing whether to put their money into fossil fuels or green alternatives. Two separate articles in Friday’s Wall Street Journal provide a good backdrop for the current dilemma. Ultimately, we’re of the opinion that it’s still too early for alternative energy to make a convincing business case.
In one story, the Journal covers a recently released annual report from the International Energy Agency. According to the Journal, the IEA paints a gloomy picture of energy shortages and escalating costs of discovery and recovery.
The IEA says that current low oil prices are an anomaly linked to the economic crisis embracing the world. Eventually, when the economy regains its health, oil prices will continue to climb over the coming years to hit $200 a barrel by 2030.
One problem with energy prices remains a dilapidated infrastructure. In turn, energy companies would have to invest more than $26 trillion by 2030, with over half of that going to increased power generation and distribution. Most of the rest of the investment will go to exploring and developing new sources of oil, the Journal writes.
Underinvestment by the oil industry could be just as responsible as increased global consumption for future price increases. Energy companies will have to spend $350 billion a year on new oil and gas projects through 2030. By comparison, the industry spent a total of $390 billion from 2000 to 2007, said the Journal.
There are two obstacles faced by oil companies when it comes to making these massive investments.
The first is the state of the current economy and shrinking energy consumption. The second is that many oil fields are past their prime, as Peak Oil proponents have been saying for decades. To extract more oil presents a questionable economic argument for new investment.
The IEA asserts, however, that renewable energy sources will grow by over 7% a year - reaching 4% of the world total by 2030, up from 1% in 2006.
That said, the IEA also said the U.S., Europe and Japan will likely never use more oil than they did last year. All projected increases in oil demand will come from the developing world, mainly China, India and the Middle East.
So if in fact the U.S. oil consumption has peaked, does it make sense for our new democratic regime to sink $150 billion over the next decade into creating new jobs for the green sector?
That’s the question asked in the second article in Friday’s Journal.
This piece challenges the wisdom of creating government-subsidized green jobs, at a time when the jury is still out about the economics of green energy.
President-elect Obama maintains that spending $150 billion over the next decade to boost energy efficiency would help create five million jobs, according to the Journal.
But the article goes on to say that these numbers are under assault by another contingent in the Obama camp.
As the Journal writes, several studies estimate that $1 invested in renewable energy or energy efficiency would yield up to four times as many jobs as $1 invested in oil and gas, whose basic infrastructure of wells, refineries and pipelines has been around for years. Moreover, those studies say, clean-energy jobs are likely to be centered in the U.S., unlike jobs in the oil and gas industry, which increasingly are spread around the world.
From our perspective, this argument is riddled with holes. Right now, China is the dominant supplier of solar-energy systems and plans on extending its lead. China is also making a push to develop state-of-the-art wind turbines.
While heavy hitters such as General Electric and T. Boone Pickens talk about their multi-billion investments in wind, there has been little competition to get these deals. Sooner rather than later, China will step in - and we know how that story ends.
The Journal also says that job creation in a burgeoning green sector could also lead to job losses in mature energy industries such as coal and oil.
Robert Pollin, a professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, co-wrote a study that questions the job target by the Obama campaign.
It said that $100 billion spent over two years could produce two million green jobs, according to the Journal. But his study didn’t count jobs that might be lost elsewhere in the economy if the country shifted to more expensive sources of green energy.
As we see it, more expensive energy leads to inflation, which also results in job losses. Businesses have to maintain a certain level of profitability, and if they’re paying more for clean energy it seems that heads will roll in the interest of net profits.
Once again, the numbers point to higher investments in fossil-fuel infrastructure versus clean energy. It’s not that we’re opposed to a cleaner environment, but new technologies in fossil-fuel discovery, reduced emissions and improved efficiency will continue to provide bigger returns in fossil fuels.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 20 comments:
Besides, no green enrgy solution is available for transportation fuel. Ethanol isn't, it takes alot of energy just to make the stuff. You still get your pollution.
Everytime somebody mentions high gasoline prices somebody else points out solar power and wind power. I think the politicians are trying to use wind power to blow sunshine up our exhaust pipes.
Gee whiz, I don't think it will work. And we will know that as soon as gas crosses 3.50 a gallon again.
What's a better investment? Probably stay away from the major oil companies in 2010, as they will have to share some of their windfall profit taxes in a year or so. Nat gas players like DVN probably positioned better, as I believe some part of a Picken's type plan will be implemented, despite Prop 10 rejection in California.
I have traded GEX and own Vestas shares, though short term there is no logic behind any of the alternative energy stocks. We keep waiting for the deleveraging to slow enough for the next sector leader to emerge, but the moving averages all keep saying we go lower.
OBama will impose a plan that starts infrastructure repair (roads, bridges, etc.) as it adds to employment rolls. State and local governments will need financial sector to gain access to financing, but payroll taxes have become slack. Is this not why our banks are being beefed up?
Big 3 will be revamped to look totally unlike present conditon. Google CEO Schmidt fed president elect some good starter ideas, to retrain midwest auto workers in energy conservation jobs. Our auto industry should get just enough money to "buyout" displaced workers.
Propelling our vehicles will take on totally new methods that have not even been fine tuned enough for industry analysts to agree upon let alone be made cost effective and long lived.
There is talk of a high speed rail system, very forward thinking, but my guess this will be more for moving of bulk materials as opposed to passenger transport.
Pelosi and Reid should not tug on the shirt sleeve of OBama, as it is already becoming frayed from so many requests. Emanuel will keep all of them in line.
Once we can get the financial crisis neutralized things will get better. Today China announced it is going to "stay home" with it's own infrastructure build, as they realize we do not have the national mindset to keep up our wasteful purchasing habits for the natural resources that end up being recycled or buried in landfills.
Prior to the Olympics, China realized it was no longer going to be able to keep up the old revenue stream via our demand side.
I just wonder if we can still go to the well for monies from them when we show them our plan next week.
It makes no sense unless you live in the sunny southwest or one of the few windy areas of the country. The wind is not there when needed most at high peak usage in hot weather. And don't ask me to pay for your green energy. Switching to high efficiency gas plants (most of today;s gas plants are low efficiency - ~32-35% efficiency versus ~55% for modern combined-cycle gas fired plants), cleaner coal and a lot more more nuclear plants would make a lot more sense. Most of the so-called green projects are built with inferior junk and can't even begin to be competitive without heavy govt subsidies. Get real.
BTW, CO2 is good for plants and trees. They eat CO2 so if you want to regrow the world's jungles and rain forests more quickly, burn more fossil fuels. Thank you.
We attended PNM electric intregrated resource planning sessions for over one year.
HEAT RATE as seen in foils 5, 6, and 7 at website are super-important for generation of electricity.
We are becoming increasing concerned that wind, solar, and other green electric generation technologies may not have the BTUs IN to produce practical power.
Second problem is where are all the BTUs in from solar and wind electrical generation being robbed from. First law of thermodynamics.
Energy is not an area of expertise and ability, only an area of interest.
Filing fraud loss claims with National Credit Union Adminstration will hopefully soon be an area of interest, expertise and ability.
www.prosefights.org/nm...
scientific arguments for this position please contact the Editor and I would be glad to justify this position in a detailed article .
The other comment I have is that while demand destruction was a significant factor early in the decline of energy prices, it is no longer an important factor. The new problem, and what will drive prices upward as the economy inches upward, will be supply destruction in oil and gas. The current low prices will destroy much of the planned supply additions (exploration projects) that were being put together over the past two years of rising prices. The next cycle in oil and gas is likely to be much more extreme, while it may be a recession away.
The plans of Obama to tax "windfall" profits of oil and gas producers in the US may be dashed, suggesting his proposed economic support for the alternative energy sector may also never come to pass. I don't expect profits of the oil and gas sector to remain high after the forward selling of oil and gas that many producers have utilized run out. By 1st Quarter '09 this profit will be gone. Natural gas producers in the US are going to be particularly hard hit, especially in the marginal resource plays, as production this year is up almost 10%, and if demand does not go up, they will be forced to either cut production or produce at lower margins. Not even T. Boone Pickens will be able to change this market, as his ideas, while excellent, depend on building infrastructure that will take years.
Besides, no green enrgy solution is available for transportation fuel. Ethanol isn't, it takes alot of energy just to make the stuff. You still get your pollution.
Everytime somebody mentions high gasoline prices somebody else points out solar power and wind power. I think the politicians are trying to use wind power to blow sunshine up our exhaust pipes.
Gee whiz, I don't think it will work. And we will know that as soon as gas crosses 3.50 a gallon again."
Ok, lets start with vehicles. We don't need ethanol, biodiesel, or anything like that to seriously reduce our dependancy on gasoline. Today, a Toyota Prius gets almost 50 mpg, average city and highway. The next generation of vehicles (Chevy Volt, etc) will get even better fuel economy. The Volt won't use a single drop of gas for any trip under 40 miles. It seems pretty obvious that within the next 10 years, the usage of automotive gasoline is going to see a very sharp decline.
As for wind and solar, the politicians are the ones holding us back, with ridiculous tax breaks for the big oil companies. How do you explain the fact that Exxon just reported the largest quarterly profit by any company in history? And they did it in the middle of a recession, when many US companies are reporting huge losses, or at least significant reductions in their income? And why did oil prices spike to $147/barrel when demand for oil was going DOWN? That just doesn't add up.
As soon as Bush and the other big oil cronies are out of office, the free market will allow other technologies such as wind and solar to gain the market share that they deserve. Wind energy is a great way to provide energy to a city or region, and solar is great for smaller-scale applications, such as a supplemental source of energy for individual homes. Put some panels on your roof, and either use the energy on an ongoing basis, or save the energy in the form of hot water. It's an easy way to save money and yes, it works.
As for the windfarms, they can be placed either in windy areas (like much of the midwest), or they can be placed offshore, where there is always plenty of wind. Across the pond, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has set a goal of 36% of all the UK's energy to come from wind power by 2020. And that doesn't include other green sources like solar power. They may have set the 36% number a little to hastily, but they will easily reach at least 25%, which is still a very large number. This is the perfect time to start investing in green energy.
Who set the stage for that move? Morgan Stanley and Goldman whose analysts made those lofty predictions, while others just followed their lead. Wait til Obama takes office and finds that Exxon may have lots of cash on hand buts its earnings are down by at least 60%.
Solar is an easy way to save money...right. The upfront costs are prohibitive. Breakeven, even with the subsidies provided in the State of California was something like 5 years before the oil drop. People are looking into the future and see that its bleak, possible unemployment looms all over. They will definitely rush out to buy Solar panels......
Windfarms? CLNE, the Pelosi sponsored TBoone Wind Farm endeavor has a good chance of going bankrupt. No financing, the Boone family has unloaded 3 million shares.
Yes indeedy, go invest in Green energy, do it now. Please name a few stocks that you do not pan in the beginning of your post, the prices you theoretically would pay for them, use the 11/11/2008 closing prices just to give yourself that extra edge. Solar and Wind only, because you think they are Great buys. "This is the perfect time to invest in Green Energy." Quote end Quote.
Let others know how smart you are by actually doing the picking yourself.
As for wind, who cares if one wind project goes bankrupt? There are so many of these projects, it hardly matters if one doesn't go through. I don't see you trying to respond to any of my examples. How many windmills are going up in the UK? Do you think all of those projects are going to suddenly fall through?
For investments, I'm going with PZD (5 star rating on Motley Fool). You could invest in the specific companies that make up this index, but that's riskier. PZD is really all you need, it consists of many of the most promising, midcap green energy companies. A gentlemen's bet says that PZD outperforms the S&P 500 over the next 5 years.
Putting Solar Panels on a roof in California will cost 15 to 20k upfront.
PZD at its Nov. 11th close, I will make a note of it. Meanwhile, I will buy PZD also but I will wait and post here at a later date what my cost is VS your BUY IT NOW statement.
You picked it up at $17.20. I'm going to try for $14 or less.
After I buy, I will post it here and guess what? At the end of any day in the future, you will still be 20% behind.
The preservation of capital and Buying low should be at the forefront in this environment. Cold unemotional logic should prevail. We will eventually use Wind, Wave, Solar, Geothermal, even Nuclear and probably technology as yet in infancy within 5 years.
My goal is to divorce emotion from the timing mechanism. The Consumer Recession is just starting officially. Pay less now, be able to buy other tech later.
Thats my motto and its the Motto I'm trying to cram down everyone else's throat. As far as I know, I'm the only one who has invested through the 1974/75 Bear who is posting on Seeking Alpha. As far as earnings are concerned, the worst is yet to come. Meanwhile, another Bull Trap is within spitting distance. My best guestimate would be after the 14th but before the 26th. It will definitely be tradeable.
But I'm about buy and hold, which means try to buy as low as possible without tying up capital.
I agree with what you say, I diasagree with the price you are willing to pay. I've lost too much already.
Excuse me for not being a day trader. What would be a better time period for judging a stock's performance? After a week? Or maybe 8 hours from now?
And since I can see you're a man who pays attention to details, that brings me to...
"Putting Solar Panels on a roof in California will cost 15 to 20k upfront. "
Is this a figure you found somewhere or did you calculate it yourself? Which manufatcurer are you using for the panels? And how big of a roof are you talking about?
Regarding the rest of your post, it seems that you're contradicting your previous post. I thought you were skeptical about wind & solar, but now you're planning to buy PZD? I thought solar was a "break even" technology? Costs are prohibitive, etc, etc. So what made you suddenly reverse your position?
As for timing, most experts agree that there's no accurate way to "time the market". I can't claim to know that the market has hit its lowest point yet... so how will you know when it has? And how did you come up with $14 as a buy price for PZD, rather than $13 or $15?
I do not have a clue as to what the current costs are, I am going soley on what the costs were 2 years ago and based on the San Diego area. If you were going to get a Tax Credit, you were going to put in a system which powered your entire house, all utilities. If you look down on the rooftops (Google Earth) you will find symmetries abound in that specific locale.
Different homes, different electrical usage, different installers, different annual climate conditions: you tell me what Panel plus installation will run on Average on a national scale. If you can get figures, please inform me where I can get them also. Unless some manufacturer is willing to install these panels for free and let me pay off the costs on an installment basis from the savings I receive by not tapping the surrounding electrical grid, I will not buy it. In the present economical environment, Would the average prudent person?
I must appologize, I should have made myself clear before posting the previous notes regarding Oil vs Solar.
I am totally in favor of everything and anything which stops the repetition of Oil's move prior to its present collapse. I agree with most of what you have posted, Your "buy it today" turned me off and triggered a tirade which I regret but I just had to vent at that specific point in time.
I am a Chartist by choice, a statistician by training and now being retired, I have the time to watch history repeat.
There are chart formations which have occurred throughout stock market history, the are repetitious and are fairly easy to identify given time. Once the pattern has been identified, the chartist tries to predict future price action from a break in either direction out of that pattern. Measured price moves can then be assigned depending on the pattern involved and the volume which accompanied the destruction of the previous pattern.
There are a lot of patterns but all are almost picture perfect mirrors on the way down as they were on the way up. I took one look at PZD, got my ruler out, traced the downward tops and a parallel line to where the bottom would be if that particular pattern held. It is below $14 but why quibble.
It is not an exact science, its definitely not infallible but its better than nothing.
The Current S&P formation and subsequent downturn is almost identical to the formation seen back in the 70's. Many of the same economic conditions existed during that period as well: Housing Boom/Bust, Oil up 1200% plus, gold up 2500%, Financial crisis, Vietnam War. The difference now is the speed of the downturn and deflation Vs Inflation. The speed is easily explained, the Internet provides economic info from around the world which was not instantaneously available back then.
Back then there was a Bubble called The Nifty 50. If you go to a charting site, get a weekly chart of the S&P 500 which encompases 1969 to 1979 and compare it to 1999 to the present, you will be amazed at the uncanny resemblance. This Chart is my core. It took two years from top to final pre-next move up to unfold. In today's world, that would be next October.
Bush, schmush... we had tricky dicky to deal with.
Richard Milhouse Nixon who was the only President of the United States to resign from office, otherwise he would have been impeached.
But really, what did Nixon do that was so bad? He broke into a hotel to steal information? That's got nothing on the Patriot act... Bush is spying on millions of Americans every single day. Not to mention his suspension of habeus corpus, violations of the Geneva Convention, the US Constitution, etc, etc. I really don't see how Nixon is anywhere near as bad as Bush. Bush is just lucky that Congress was incapable of impreaching him. Ok, enough politics.
The 70's comparision seems accurate. I did a quick look at the S&P and it fell about 48% from its peak in 73 to the low in 74. During the current crisis, the S&P is down about 45%. That would indicate to me that we're pretty close to the bottom. If you had invested in the S&P when it was down, in October 1973, you would've made about a 50% profit over the next 2 years.
I don't think there has ever been a time in US history where the market dropped by 45%, and then dropped even more after that. See my point? It has dropped by 45% before, but afterwards it always goes back up. And it tends to rise back up pretty quickly, by the way. That's why I think this is the time to buy.
The time frame would indicate another year of wallowing around. Usually what happens is a rotational washout of previous winners as money moves from sector to sector taking profits from wherever and moving into other sectors. Money would be trying to find a "home".
This time around, the Home appears to be cash for the time being. The previous 6 years are being unwound simultaneously because of fear for what the future may bring.
Back then I made quite a lot of seemingly smart decisions predicated on what appeared to be smart choices for the future. Like Solar for instance, there were Solar stocks around then too, not as advanced but with oil going to a $100, what the hell, I was going to make money hand over fist. They all died, I lost big time.
So for the short term, I am quite willing to wait until the Solars, Wind, all of the Alt. energy plays, etc. stop their respective gyrations and build a base. They go sideways for a while. The index itself could be close to a bottom, the sectors within it might not be.
Window dressing time is upon us, Mutual Fund and Tax loss selling as well as some continued Hedge Fund moves. I want to keep my powder dry for a bit longer.
Nibbling is fine, I just don't believe in jumping in with both feet. Especially now when my hands are tied, there is a rope around my neck and a bunch of Economists are trying to decide my fate.
Second: "As we see it, more expensive energy leads to inflation, which also results in job losses. " Actually, if inflation is always and everywhere caused by money supply excesses (Friedman's thesis), then expensive energy would not cause net job losses, but only changes in job allocation.
The problem is not that renewable energy is expensive, but that investors do not reap all the benefits of such investments (whereas, with fossil fuels, they can maximize the benefits while shifting the costs - such as pollution, military involvement, etc.) to others.
In a sense, the government has provided a trillion dollar investment in fossil fuels since 2003. What's wrong with a few hundred billion in renewable energy, at the very least, as a hedge?