Have you read the latest Monthly Energy Review, published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration?
If you have, you know something that most don't and that some wish you had never learned.
If you haven't, don't worry. . . I'm about to fill you in.
Buried deep in the 197-page report is a fact that sends chills down the spines of proponents of the status quo, while simultaneously filling others with a sense of satisfaction.
24 Straight Energy Winners
We just closed #24 with a 114% gain...
... And we've just released #25.
Our new report details the entire situation... and how this new play could be the next triple bagger our readers are getting accustomed to.
Just follow this link.
For the second month in a row, renewable energy has provided more energy than all nuclear reactors in the country combined.
So much for the "it'll never make a dent" argument.
And this is exactly the point that I've been trying to convey to you: When you start at the bottom. . . there's nowhere to go but up.
Alternative Energy: The Lonely Grower
The Monthly Energy Review chronicles energy production and consumption data through May 2009.
From January to May, production from coal fell from 1.968 quadrillion Btu (QBTU) to 1.722 QBTU — a 13% decline.
The use of natural gas fell 0.6%, from 1.845 QBTU to 1.834 QBTU.
And nuclear went from .771 QBTU to .684 QBTU, falling 11.2%.
Can you guess what happened to renewables?
They grew from .650 QBTU to .707 QBTU — a rise of 8.7% — and clearly the only grower of the bunch.
Sorry for the numbers and figures, but there would be more than a handful of doubters if I simply claimed renewable energy production growth outpaced coal and natural gas, while its total production was greater than nuclear for the first five months of 2009.
Plus. . . I like to rub it in.
But, of course, this isn't all about individual energy beliefs. . . the primary goal here is making money.
And you can bet there's a fair share of money being made from the sector that now outpaces nuclear production. In a second, I'm going to tell you how you can profit two ways from renewable energy.
But first, let me drill down on the sectors that are providing most of the growth. . . and those that aren't.
Put It in the Air
For this section, I'll compare the first five months of 2008 to the first five months of 2009. Here's a chart that shows production for that time period for four relevant fuels:
| Source | Jan.-May. 2008 | Jan.-May. 2009 | Difference |
| Coal | 9.829 QBTU | 9.250 QBTU | -6.00% |
| Natural Gas | 8.74 | 9.02 | 3.00% |
| Nuclear | 3.39 | 3.45 | 2.00% |
| Wind | 0.22 | 0.29 | 32.00% |
Geothermal and solar remained flat.
We see here that coal is the only fuel whose production slipped. We also see that wind is the far-and-away winner.
This confirms what I've been trying to tell you over the past few months. In July, I wrote to my readers:
. . . While we've been talking about a tipping point for some time, I'd have to say we've squarely passed it.
Yes, we still need coal. Yes, we still need oil. Yes, we still need natural gas.
But, it's not mutually exclusive to profit from and support both traditional and clean energy technologies.
Accepting that fact is the only thing keeping us from a secure energy future.
And it's because renewables started with such a small share of the mix that they can grow so quickly. Wind didn't even provide one-third of a quad, yet it grew 32%. . . smack-dab in the middle of a recession.
By the time it reaches just two quads, it will have grown nearly 600%.
to 9,210% Total Gains in the Last 3 Years?
By trading options... with accuracy and precision.
And over the next few weeks, he'll accept 200 members into his newest options training service.
Introducing the Options Trading Coach.
To learn more, just follow this link.
The stocks will deliver equal percentage growth. And it's starting already. Back in February, I advised thousands of AES readers to buy the First Trust Global Wind Energy ETF (NYSE: FAN). Here's a chart of its progress over the past six months:
We're now up about 35%, but I expect to go much higher.
There's plenty of time to get in on this play. Wind's growth will be solid for the next decade. . .and this ETF gives you exposure to many of the companies making it happen.
I'd also suggest holding long-term plays in other sectors. A solar ETF like the Claymore Global Solar Energy (NYSE: TAN), and a diversified cleantech ETF, like Clean Edge Green Energy (NASDAQ: QCLN), can offer "set-it-and-forget-it" ways to play this imminent trend.
Cleantech's here to stay, folks. It just passed nuclear. And it's high time you started taking some of the easy profits it has to offer.
Call it like you see it,
Nick
P.S. I can say with confidence that the profits have been easy. . . and readers of the Alternative Energy Speculator couldn't be happier. We've built it into a proverbial profit machine, closing 35 double-digit winners so far this year. Click here to see how we've done it and why it will continue indefinitely.
Subscribe to
What's the cost/W to install? And what is the production cost? Probably about the same as nuclear for capital costs, and 10X higher or more for production costs.
As Bastiat says, look at the seen and the unseen. The unseen is the opportunity cost of the redeployed capital, that could have actually been getting a decent return. Another e.g.: in Spain, every Green Job created under a government program cost 2.2 jobs elsewhere.
It's a beggar-thy-neighbor and -thyself proposition in the long run.
it says... "And nuclear went from .771 QBTU to .684 QBTU, falling 11.2%."
and then...
They grew from .650 QBTU to .707 QBTU a rise of 8.7%
.707 is larger than .684
quadrillion Btu (QBTU)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule
Nuclear is the obvious answer to all the energy problems we have. Sooner or later it will be evident.
These reserves, combined with the huge Nat Gas reserves, yet to be utilized, places transportation fuels as sufficient to meet our needs to the 22nd century.
Peak Oil Theory never was validated by Peer review, and the proven reserves of oil keep expanding, when the theory said we were running out of oil, further invalidated the theory.
That doesnt even factor in "probable" reserves which adds many more billions or trillions to our total supply.
Besides "Peak" never did factor in the pricing power of the market place.
"rest in peace"
When the Democrats "gave in" to Bush on opening offshore drilling they put in some poison pills. First off the area must be far offshore, quite dangerous in the Atlantic as opposed to the Gulf. Then the companies must get State permission but the States aren't allowed to get royalties; they go to the central regime. No State in its right mind will agree to those terms. by the way, the original ban on offshore drilling put in by Bush Sr had expired and Clinton had renewed it at several times the term limit. But of course the ban was blamed on the Bushes.
As for nuclear, the process to get permits takes decades and isn't guaranteed. Then there's the problem of States reneging on their commitments to build nuclear waste disposal site due to Democratic "not in my backyard syndrome."
As for petroleum, Rep Waters and other Democrats tipped their hand when they called for nationalization of the petroleum refining industry so as to control the distribution of petroleum. No doubt red states might face critical shortages of gas and oil if they continued to insist on free elections.
But when all is said and done, wind and solar energy are critical resources that MUST be developed. So must hydro and geothermal energy be developed. And although we've been 50 years away from nuclear fusion energy for the last 50 years it too must be pursued.
But if you think the goal of the socialists in power is to free the USSA from foreign independence; think again.
True win might be a good short term stock market investment but that is all. Go with the flow if you must but take profits quickly
Did you know that 446000 megawat capacity only produces 111500 max they are only 25% efficient and in anycase where are the manufacturers going to get the 700 pounds of neodymium each windmill requires in manufactuing?
Actual summary link here:
http://www.kobashi.co.uk/environment.shtml