Chris Nelder - Angel Publishing

Governments Worried about Peak Oil

In the first part of this series, I reviewed a series of reports from March supporting the peak oil view, and warning that world oil production very well may go into terminal decline by 2015 or sooner.

The sources included the UK Industry Task Force on Peak Oil and Energy Security and officials within the British government; researchers within the College of Engineering and Petroleum at Kuwait University; researchers from Oxford University; and ConocoPhillips, the third-largest oil company in the U.S.

On March 25, the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) joined the officially worried, with a report in French newspaper Le Monde titled "Washington considers a decline of world oil production as of 2011."

The FREE $45,000 report that could make you rich...

In 1991, a history-changing report surfaced in the oil industry.

The details are too numerous to list right here, but this report — dubbed a best seller by The New York Times — helped uncover an incredible source of oil no one had considered for years.

Click here for free access to all the information you need to start banking 180 times your investment.

The author had pestered Glen Sweetnam, director of the International, Economic and Greenhouse Gas division of the Energy Information Agency (EIA), for details about a presentation he had given at a semi-public DoE round-table with oil economists in April 2009. How he got wind of it, I don't know, but I admire his persistence.

The zinger was this chart:

Source: Glen Sweetnam, "Meeting the World's Demand for Liquid Fuels - A Roundtable Discussion," EIA 2009 Energy Conference, April 7, 2009, Washington, DC

The implication was obvious: The EIA has no idea how production could increase after 2012. In the absence of these "unidentified projects," they expect global oil supply to decline by about 2% per year - from 87 million barrels per day (mbpd) in 2011 to 80 mbpd by 2015 - while demand rises to 90 mbpd.

Within five years, then, there will be a 10 mbpd gap between supply and demand—roughly a Saudi Arabia's worth of production (currently 10.8 mbpd).

(I should note that although Sweetnam's chart gives the EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2009 as the source, I found no such chart, nor even the data that might produce it, in my copy of that publication. I am unable to explain that discrepancy.)

The agency officially continues to lay any concerns about future supply at the feet of insufficient investment. In Sweetnam's interview with Le Monde, he put it this way: "'a chance exists that we may experience a decline' of world liquid fuels production between 2011 and 2015 ‘if the investment is not there.'"

It's a weak position to take in the wake of the oil price blow-off of 2008. The world's developed economies simply cannot tolerate the high prices that would entice that investment (see "'Peak Oil Demand,' Yes... But Not the Nice Kind"), and I'm sure the EIA knows it.

You'd think the American media would have been all over the story, as it signaled a major about-face in the official U.S. position on peak oil. As recently as 2008, the EIA's base case scenario was for oil supply to rise through 2030, and not decline until 2090!

Yet five days later when I Googled it, there was not one story from a major domestic publication. Only blogs and the usual peak oil sites had picked it up.

In my seasoned judgment, the American media blackout is deliberate.

And speaking of media blackouts...

Media Blackout at the World's Biggest Energy Forum

On March 30-31, the biennial International Energy Forum (IEF) summit took place in Cancun. Attendees at the world's largest energy forum included ministers from 64 countries, members of the IEA and OPEC, and other dignitaries.

In parallel, Cancun also hosted the International Energy Business Forum, attended by some 36 companies including the top executives of China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC), ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell.

In short, the twin conferences were a Very Big Deal.

But when I searched Google News for stories containing the exact phrase "International Energy Forum" and published during the conference, it wasn't until the seventh page of results that I found any stories from major American media outlets, and those stories were strictly focused on specific issues like oil and gas prices. They said not a word about peak oil.

A journalist from the oil and gas media organization Platts explained what happened on his blog. All media were barred from the IEF conference room, and exiled to a press room where the presentations were shown on monitors with no sound. When reporters asked for sound, the monitors were turned off. All sessions were then declared to be private, and the reporters that had come from around the globe to cover the conference were simply shut out.

According to journalist Matthew Wild, the presentations included one from PFC Energy titled "Unpacking Uncertainty: Investment Issues in the Petroleum Sector."

The document reviews three forecasts for oil supply: The IEA's, which shows it reaching 109 mbpd by 2030; OPEC's, which expects it to reach 111 mbpd; and PFC's own, which expects supply to peak around 2020-2025 at 95 mbpd, then decline to 90 mbpd by 2030.

Although it sees the decline of mature fields proceeding at a slower rate than the IEA, PFC Energy still believes it will be "rapid enough to produce a world energy picture that differs vastly from previous long-range energy assessments," and goes on to explain:

This is not a world of "peak oil" where global hydrocarbon potential is exhausted, but rather of peak production, where the petroleum industry's ability to continue to increase-or even maintain-production of conventional oil (and eventually gas) is constrained. Exploitation of unconventional oil will provide additional liquids, but in all probability only at increasingly higher costs, and it will depend on significant investments to develop appropriate technologies to convert today's resources into tomorrow's reserves.

The exact timing of both the plateau and onset of irreversible decline will be influenced by the factors that determine long-term changes in supply and demand. Nevertheless, the challenge is coming, and this emerging world of limited conventional production will require major adjustments on the part of both consumers and producers.

The phrasing of the first statement is curious. Serious observers know that "peak oil" has never meant the exhaustion of hydrocarbon potential, and has always meant the peak of production flow rates. I covered a presentation by Michael Rodgers of PFC Energy at last year's peak oil conference, so I must believe that PFC Energy knows better than to characterize peak oil that way and simply chose to do so for the appeasement of its IEF audience.

Making Our Oil Addiction a Thing of the Past

BP's catastrophic spill proved once again that our addiction to oil is downright dangerous.

With our need for new fuels comes a new frontier for investors of these cheaper and more reliable future fuels...

Alternative energy expert Nick Hodge has come across a company that he expects can hand you over 1,925% gains with the transportation technology that will lead the pack in clean, efficient energy.

Find out more about this company now — before the news of this transportation technology makes headlines, sending its share price soaring.

In any case, we now know that the world's top energy ministers have seen a serious presentation on peak oil, and heard the warning about its seriousness, albeit a somewhat soft-pedaled one.

Most reports on the conference featured the theme that better data and transparency on reserves reporting is needed - a bell that peak oil mavens like Colin Campbell have been ringing for over a decade. Without it, the world is in the dark about the true future of oil supply.

To reinforce that point, IEA head Nobuo Tanaka told the Financial Times at the conference that it has invited China to join the IEA because global oil demand has shifted to the East. "Our relevance is under question," he worried, as the opacity of data on Chinese oil demand and inventory threatens to blind the agency to the true state of the world's oil markets.

Another key theme was an evident widespread concern about the volatility of oil prices. By the end of the conference, IEA, OPEC, and the IEF were expected to announce a "joint action plan" to control volatility and ensure that prices remain stable enough to encourage new production.

While the IEF was under way, the chairman of the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) told Reuters that blaming speculators for price spikes was a "crutch" used to avoid looking at the realities of oil supply and demand. As I explained in July 2009, traders have turned to the ICE to skirt the stricter position limits on the NYMEX. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has now proposed new regulations to limit the influence of speculators in the energy markets, which are up for public comment until April 26.

You (Still) Can't Handle the Truth

By any measure, March was a watershed month for the truth about peak oil.

Estimates on the timing of the peak have narrowed dramatically, and now center on the 2012-2015 time frame. The range of estimates on the peak rate of production remain a bit broader and shrouded in caveats, but they are rapidly drawing closer to 90 mbpd. And the globally averaged, post-peak annual decline rates are settling in around 2%.

In other words, industry and governments appear to be coming around to what my call has been all along: 2012, at 90 mbpd or less, then declining at about 2.5% per year.

Now we know that the oil and gas industry, as well as the world's governments, are not only aware of the peak oil threat... they too are deeply worried about it.

Worried enough to huddle behind closed doors, away from the press. Worried enough to formulate plans to control price volatility. Worried enough to agitate for more transparent data. Worried enough to begin planning for a future of relentlessly declining energy.

But not worried enough to tell the American people the truth... not just yet.

Regards,

Chris Nelder

Your IRA and 401(k) are in Washington's sights...

But you'll never hear about it in the mainstream media until it's too late to save your retirement assets.

Click HERE for the "guerilla wealth" secret to keeping your hard-earned nest-egg in your own hands - and perhaps even growing it by 378% every five months.

Utility-Scale Energy Storage Innovations

On the first day of this year, I wrote: "The intermittency problem of wind and solar will be largely solved this decade, as new storage solutions come to market."

Yet the pace of progress in storage during just the first quarter has surprised even me.

Readers of this space are well familiar with storage technologies like pumped water, vehicle-to-grid, concentrating solar thermal, supercapacitors, hydrogen fuel cells, and flywheels.

This week, I'll take a look at a few unusual, utility-scale applications.

The Metals Secret that JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, and Barclays Don't Want You to Know...

For nearly a decade now... One silver stock has outperformed the Dow Jones by a factor of 122.

It's beaten the NASDAQ by 11,500%. And it's crushed the S&P 500 at a rate of 180 to 1!

In fact this little-known silver mining outfit has handed investors annual gains of 852% over the last nine years.

To learn more about the only silver investment you’ll need to make this year… Click here now.

The World's Biggest Battery

Fairbanks, Alaska, has taken battery storage to a whole new level...

An array of 13,760 NiCad batteries — "the world's biggest battery" — was deployed in 2003 to provide emergency power in a place so frigid that water pipes can freeze in a few hours.

If the data I found is correct, the 1500 ton, 3680 amp-hour, 5000 volt system can provide roughly 18,400 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of power. The array could discharge the power over a range from 27 megawatts of power for 24 minutes, to 46 megawatts for 5 minutes.

That's just enough to keep the grid in Fairbanks humming when there are problems wheeling power over from the generators in Anchorage.

At a cost of $30 million (in 2003), that works out to $1,630 per kWh. That seems pricey indeed when compared to the 15 cents/kWh regular grid power price in Alaska, but cost per kWh is the wrong metric to use.

The real measure of its worth is in preventing damage to the health of customers, infrastructure, and economic activity. By that measure, the $30 million seems like a bargain. The system provided 529 minutes of backup during outages for more than a quarter of a million customers in the first year of operation alone.

Pumped Heat Storage

A newer and far cheaper solution is pumped heat storage. A startup company in the UK called Isentropic Energy has developed a modular system to store energy as heat, and claims it can do it for only $55/kWh.

The system uses two large containers of gravel, seven meters high and eight meters wide, with a reversible heat pump between them. One container is cold (-160ºC) and the other is hot (500°C). Air pumped from one vessel to another lets it operate reversibly, to generate or store power. The claimed efficiency of the system is good, at 72%-80%.

Designed for small utility scale applications, the first Isentropic systems will deliver 16 MWh of power, making them slightly smaller, but vastly cheaper, than the battery array in Fairbanks.

Ice Storage

A new heat pump solution announced this year uses ice as a storage medium.

Colorado-based startup Ice Energy is offering a system that freezes 450 gallons of water in large boxes placed next to air conditioners in commercial buildings. Freezing the water at night when grid power prices are low, then circulating air over the ice in the middle of the day, will let customers in warm climates shut down their air conditioners when grid power prices are highest.

The company claims its technology can slash fuel consumption by 30% by reducing the need for utilities to run expensive natural gas-fired plants to meet peak loads. Air conditioning accounts for as much as half the peak power demand in California.

In February, the company signed a $100 million deal for 6,000 of their "Ice Bear" units with the Southern California Public Power Authority for use at 1,500 locations in their Los Angeles service area. Each unit can reportedly shift 32 kWh per day of power demand from daytime to nighttime, and operates at about 85% efficiency.

I wasn't able to track down enough data to calculate the cost per kWh of operation, but for the purpose of rough comparison we can hazard a guess. If each unit stores 32 kWh of power 200 days a year in Los Angeles, that's 6,400 kWh/year of power storage per unit. At a cost of $16,667 per unit, that's $3.47 per kWh. Although that leaves out the cost of using grid power to freeze the ice, and amortizes the cost over only one year, it does suggest that Ice Energy's system will be a very low-cost form of energy storage indeed.

Ice Energy CEO Frank Ramirez claimed, "I think you can draw the conclusion that nothing will ever be cheaper as a storage medium."

Other players in the space are New Jersey-based CALMAC Manufacturing, which has been around since 1947, and Seattle-based startup Optimum Energy, which makes software for chiller systems. As yet, I have not found any public companies in the sector.

Using ice as a storage medium isn't exactly new. Ice-based air conditioners have been used since the 1920s. In fact, air conditioners are rated in tons to denote the weight of ice they can produce in a day.

The Biggest Investment of the 21st Century

It's called the smart grid... and it's about to revolutionize the way we use our electricity.

GE and Google have already committed billions to this technology...

But a handful of "super-ups" are poised to dominate this $297 billion/year industry...

Get their names and ticker symbols here.

Distribution Instead of Storage

A different approach I mentioned in February is the $42 billion HVDC "supergrid" that nine European countries plan to build around the North Sea. When completed, the connections would enable renewable power to be shipped around Europe at will, whether it's being generated by offshore wind in Denmark, wave power in Scotland, solar power in North Africa, or hydropower in Norway.

Additionally, Norway's hydropower facilities — equivalent to about 30 large coal-fired power plants — could effectively function as power storage for the European supergrid. Excess production from any of the connected generators could be used to pump water up to Norway's reservoirs, then generate power at a later time by running the hydropower plants.

Compressed Air Storage

Compressed air storage is another older technology that is being applied in some new ways.

For example, startup SolarCAT, Inc. is working on its first application in Arizona, which will use off-peak grid power to compress air in large underground salt caverns and other geological formations. The compressed air alone functions as a storage medium, but SolarCAT intends to take the idea to the next level.

The compressed air can be heated to high temperatures with a concentrated solar power (CSP) plant or another type of heater (such as a natural gas furnace), then used to power small, efficient turbines.

At this time, data on the cost of operation for SolarCAT's system is not available.

Compressed air has also been under consideration in various parts of the world as a storage medium for wind-generated electricity.

Ammonia Storage

A handful of companies are working on another new application of an older storage medium: ammonia. Ammonia has been synthesized from natural gas and electrolysis for nearly a century, but it is mostly used to make fertilizer.

The new idea is to use it as a storage medium for energy generated by sources like offshore wind turbines that are too far away from the grid for transmission lines to be economical.

For example, offshore wind platforms could send their power to an adjacent platform performing solid state ammonia synthesis. From there it can be barged to land, where it can be used directly as a fuel, or pumped into a pipeline system. Ammonia is, therefore, a highly versatile medium, in that it can be used for generation, usage, storage, and transmission.

Matthew Simmons, the longtime oil and gas industry investment banker and peak oil expert, is a big proponent of the technology and wants to see it used to enable distant offshore wind production off the coast of Maine.

Ammonia has several advantages as a storage medium:

• It can be stored for a long time, like propane, without leakage or spoilage.
• It can be shipped long distances over water in relatively low-tech barges. At distances over 1000 km, the cost of shipping ammonia is about half that of shipping liquid hydrogen, and at distances of 400 km, it's competitive with DC transmission lines.
• It's highly scalable, and can be made in massive quantities (millions of tons per year).
• An extensive delivery system for it already exists.
• Its energy density is pretty good: about 13 kWh/gallon, compared to 9 kWh/gallon for liquid hydrogen.

The cost is attractive as well. Solid state ammonia synthesis from electricity is cost competitive with gasoline at about 4-6 cents/kWh.

Hidden Advantages

As with Fairbanks' giant battery, the advantages of these new utility-scale storage systems extend far beyond mere cost per kWh metrics.

They have real potential to reduce utilities' reliance on fossil-fueled generation, as well as to enable significant growth of renewables. In effect, they can help sources like solar and wind become true baseload capacity generators. As they help shift loads from fossil fuels to renewables, they will also reduce CO2 and other emissions.

But arguably, the best benefits are intangible: greater energy self-sufficiency, better public health, resiliency, and extended economic benefits—such as keeping revenue local instead of sending it to the Middle East, and maintaining grid stability. The extended economic benefit of transmission support alone has been estimated at a whopping $197,486 per kWh.

New studies show that the energy storage market will double from $21 billion in 2010 to $44 billion by 2015. As it develops, the cost per kWh will continue to fall.

Even so, it's still an industry in its infancy — one that could become a $200 billion market in time. California Attorney General and gubernatorial hopeful Jerry Brown recently proposed a bill that would require storage equivalent to 2.25% of peak power demand in the state by 2014. For California's country-sized economy and for nations around the world, storage is a keystone for full renewable energy implementation.

I'll take an extended look at the market opportunity and its benefits in an upcoming article.

Until next time,

Chris

Officials Wake Up to Peak Oil

When I began writing about peak oil professionally in 2006, it was generally considered a tinfoil hat theory. The notion that oil production might peak around 2012 (plus or minus) was only taken seriously by a few analysts who were considered extremely pessimistic.

Official forecasts had no cognizance of it whatsoever. All were confident that oil supply would continue to grow steadily to 130 million barrels per day (mbpd) and beyond, at prices that would be considered astoundingly cheap by today's standards. Oil companies rarely mentioned peak oil, and when they did, it was in a casually dismissive way.

But as time marched on, the cornucopian arguments fell one by one. My longtime readers have seen the story unfold, but for the benefit of new readers, here's a quick summary...

This Oil Stock is up 354% Since We Recommended It

The little-known Mongolian company we've been touting for months just struck it big...

Drilling commenced and they've hit oil — and lots of it.

Oil from an incredible source that no one had considered for years...

This is just the beginning of what could turn out to be a HUGE run. We're talking thousands of percent gains here.

Click here for all the information you need to get in on this oil outfit before its share price hits the ceiling.

Forecasts grew increasingly pessimistic as it became apparent that regular conventional crude supply had peaked at the end of 2004. Even as the biggest oil price spike in history ensued from 2005-2008, crude production remained flat and unresponsive.

OPEC scaled back some of its development plans as costs soared. Non-OPEC production not only failed to deliver any actual increase, but began to decline. Forecasts were revised lower.

Corn ethanol boomed and busted, as it was revealed to be the net energy non-starter that serious analysts always knew it was. It also was suspected of adding pressure to food prices at a most inopportune time.

Unconventional production from oil shale and tar sands failed to grow as expected, as producers shied away from high-cost, low-production projects.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) finally included the depletion of mature fields in its analysis, and became increasingly shrill in its warnings about future supply.

A few current and former oil industry executives began making public statements about the diminishing prospects for new supply, and a few even acknowledged that it would be hard to increase production much beyond current levels.

Then high oil prices proved intolerable to an economy stretched thin by the bursting of the bubbles in the real estate and financial sectors.

Yet official recognition of the peak oil threat remained muted, couched in warnings about "adequate investment" and blithe assertions that demand would soon peak, averting any supply shortage.

All that seems to have changed in the last month. A sudden deluge of reports and summit meetings suggest that the oil industry and energy officials are now taking peak oil very seriously indeed.

UK Task Force on Peak Oil: Shortages by 2015

The first bombshell was actually dropped on February 10, when the UK Industry Task Force on Peak Oil and Energy Security issued a report called "The Oil Crunch: A wake-up call for the UK economy." I only mentioned it in passing at the time, but it was a stern warning that "oil shortages, insecurity of supply and price volatility will destabilise economic, political, and social activity potentially by 2015."

It only made the news because Sir Richard Branson personally endorsed it; but the fact that the task force comprised top UK executives and energy experts lent it enough weight to be rather widely circulated in the press.

The British government, including energy minister Lord Hunt, responded by staging a closed-door summit meeting with the taskforce on March 22. As the UK's Guardian reported, the government intended to develop an action plan to contend with a near-term peak, and to "calm rising fears over peak oil."

Veteran peak oil analyst and taskforce member Jeremy Leggett explained: "Government has gone from the BP position — '40 years of supply left, the price mechanism works, no need to worry' — to 'crikey'." He urged the assembly to properly assess the risks of peak oil, and to immediately begin preparing for the end of globalization and an era of oil shortages in the West.

According to reports from attendees, the summit yielded some important conclusions:

Peak oil is either here, or close enough.
Prices will have to go higher as demand outstrips supply.
Governments will be forced to intervene to maintain critical levels of oil supply, and limit volatility.
Rationing measures may be unavoidable.
Electrification of transport must be pursued in order to reduce demand.
Communities will need to work quickly to reorganize around walking instead of driving, producing food and energy locally instead of importing, and generally try to reduce their need for oil.

However, the notion that peak oil will mean the end of economic growth, as I have argued, apparently fell on deaf ears. Still, the very fact that the government has engaged with the peak oil community and formed a parliamentary group to study the issue offers a sliver of hope that, at least in the UK, we'll have some measure of consciousness about the issue and an idea of what to do about it as we drive off the peak oil cliff.

Kuwait Report: Peak by 2014

The next was a report that surfaced around March 12. Three authors from the College of Engineering and Petroleum at Kuwait University had applied advanced mathematics to reserve and production data for the top 47 oil producing countries using a multi-cycle Hubbert model, which demonstrated a much better fit to historical data than single-cycle Hubbert Curve analyses.

The model estimates the world's ultimate crude oil production at 2140 billion barrels, with 1161 billion barrels remaining to produce as of the end of 2005. It forecast that world production would peak in 2014 around 79 mbpd. The annual depletion rate of world reserves was estimated to be around 2.1%.

The results weren't really news to the peakists, for they matched up quite well with the models of Colin Campbell, Jean Laherrère, and other analysts who have warned about peak oil since 1995. What made this report interesting was that first, it was from Kuwait; and second, it brought a new level of mathematical rigor to the study.

The model indicated that non-OPEC production peaked in 2006 at 39.6 mbpd. It forecasts that OPEC production will peak in 2026 at 53 mbpd, up from 31 mbpd in 2005, with the majority of the increase coming from Iraq, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. Then OPEC production is expected to decline to 29 mbpd by 2050.

Oxford Report: Reserves Exaggerated by One Third

On March 22, another bombshell exploded in the press as former UK chief scientist David King and researchers from Oxford University released a paper claiming that the world's oil reserves had been "exaggerated by up to a third," principally by OPEC.

Their "objective analysis" showed that conventional oil reserves stand at just 850-900 billion barrels — not the 1,150-1,350 billion barrels that are officially claimed by oil producers and accepted by the politically influenced IEA.

They anticipated that demand could outstrip supply by 2014-2015.

In a statement that sounded like a direct echo of what peak oil analysts like me have been saying for years, co-author Dr. Oliver Inderwildi remarked, "The belief that alternative fuels such as biofuels could mitigate oil supply shortages and eventually replace fossil fuels is a pie in the sky. Instead of relying on those silver bullet solutions, we have to make better use of the remaining resources by improving efficiency."

Again, it was hardly a revelation. I detailed the "political reserves" additions of OPEC producers in 2007, when I was writing Profit from the Peak. But the fact that it was recognized widely in the press was a marked change from the past.

The future of fuel will indeed be all about efficiency and alternative energy. This process — whether you've noticed or not — is well underway. Hundreds of billions will be made as a select group of companies slowly eradicate the rampant waste in our electricity distribution system, which has been estimated at upwards of 60% by analysts.

ConocoPhillips Gives Up on Growth

On March 25, ConocoPhillips CEO Jim Mulva admitted that pursuing new oil reserves just doesn't pay. The remaining resources have become too marginal and too expensive, and the competition for them has become too intense.

Rather than keep slugging it out with bigger and better-funded players in pursuit of growth, Conoco has decided to sell $10 billion worth of its assets over the next two years, all of them in the marginal category, and concentrate on producing its core assets.

The proceeds will be used to buy back its stock, reduce its debt, and raise dividends — just as rival ExxonMobil has been doing for the last five years or so.

When I inferred in Profit from the Peak that the oil majors were spending vastly more money on buying back stock than investing in new exploration because reserves were getting too expensive and risky, veterans of the Street greeted the idea with extreme skepticism.

Now it's a plain fact. A Rice University study released in July 2008 found that the five largest international oil companies spent about 55% of their profits on stock buybacks and dividends in 2007, but only about 6% on new exploration and production. "Could we spend $20 billion or $25 billion [on exploration]? Absolutely," Conoco spokesman Gary Russell said at the time. "Could we do it effectively, in a way that provides ultimate value to our shareholders? Probably not."

Those of us who have been observing the trend for years greeted the latest Conoco comments with little more than a shrug, but it did get the attention of the laggard mainstream press.

In my next Energy and Capital column two weeks from now, we'll see how the U.S. Department of Energy is now considering the possibility of a decline in world liquid fuels production by 2015, and pick up a few more clues from the International Energy Forum held this week.

Until next time,

Chris

World's Industrial Supermetal

A metal with a name you probably can't even pronounce... is absolutely essential to a $987 billion-a-year global industry.

And today — thanks in part to a massive Chinese campaign to monopolize this most crucial of elements — we're at the brink of a global deficit.

Learn how one microcap mining outfit can make you 2682% as it taps into one of the world's last major deposits.

PG&E: California's Fossil Fuel War Lords

Anyone who thinks a peaceful transition from fossil fuels to distributed renewable energy is possible should think again.

In fact the recent actions of the fossil fuel industry have the unmistakable flavor of war.

Its lords have clearly decided that they stand to lose far more in their existing businesses than they might gain from leading the clean energy revolution, at least in the short term. And in today's business world, the short term is all that counts.

A comprehensive study on what's really happening out there would fill a book. For this short column, I offer just a few current highlights.

The War for Renewables in California

I'll begin right here at home, by updating the continuing drama around the Marin Energy Authority (MEA) I previewed in "The Renewable Power Rebellion."

First, a bit of background...

After California deregulated its electricity markets in 1997, a flood of new competitors to the investor-owned utilities (IOUs) entered the market. Individual consumers could choose among several power providers, some of whom offered 100% renewable energy. But the power crisis of 2000-2001 — precipitated by the despicable Enron and its comrades — ended that consumer choice and forced them back into the arms of the IOUs.

Who's Really Making a Killing from Foreclosures?

It's not the banks... It's not the auctioneers... And it certainly isn't John Q Public...

Instead, one unique company actually figured out a way to thrive from this financial crisis.

As lenders work through their mountains of foreclosures, this outfit prepares to skyrocket...

And you could be handed an absolute fortune, month after month, through 2012.

Read our latest report right now to find out how.

In 2002, a different sort of consumer choice was enacted through AB 117, which allowed municipalities to form new entities called Community Choice Aggregations (CCAs). CCAs can buy power from other providers on behalf of the customers within their jurisdictions. Customers who do not want to join the CCAs may opt out.

CCAs effectively offer a new way that consumers can choose more renewable power than their utility can (or will) offer.

This year, MEA emerged as the first CCA in California, offering 20% renewable power — as compared with PG&E's 15% — right out of the gate, with a consumer option to buy 100% renewable power for a modest 6% price premium.

But the monopoly IOU, PG&E, is prosecuting an aggressive campaign to stop it in its tracks. I have begun an investigation into PG&E's actions and as the Robert Hunter lyric goes, "If I told you all that went down, it would burn off both your ears."

Underhanded, dirty tricks are their norm, not the exception. Yet they are widely regarded (thanks to ample spending on public relations campaigns) as one of the greenest, most progressive utilities in the country.

PG&E originally lent its qualified support to CCAs when the legislation came out, but then adopted a neutral stance when the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) began its proceedings on the matter. Beyond the words, however, PG&E's actions demonstrate that it clearly considers municipalization of power procurement a threat to its business.

Under a Byzantine arrangement of subsidiaries and relationships with other entities, the utility PG&E has devised various ways to work around the rules that pretended to protect the consumer after deregulation. For just one example, it now procures much of its power through swap agreements and opaque contracts with third parties so that the CPUC can no longer really examine their details. I've been told that I couldn't find how much profit they make on generation if I wanted to, because nobody has all the information.

What is clear is that PG&E owns an effective monopoly on providing natural gas — both to customers directly, and to the gas-burning generators of its electricity. Their profit margin on the power itself is kept minimal under the law, but that's allegedly about one-tenth of the profit they make on transmission of the gas through its pipelines, and the transmission of power over its network.

That appears to be the real reason that PG&E has fought the MEA. If the latter were to succeed in fostering widespread deployment of distributed rooftop solar generation, it would cut PG&E's revenues from both power transmission and natural gas supplied to centralized power plants. And if MEA were a stunning success, as Ohio's CCA has been, it could lead to a proliferation of CCAs across the state.

After PG&E's distortions and outright lies intended to whip up fear and confusion about MEA — under the guise of the "Common Sense Coalition" it funded — failed to stop it, the utility committed up to $35 million to put Proposition 16 on the ballot in June.

It is the sole architect and sponsor of the initiative, which would embed in the state constitution a new requirement for "two-thirds of the voters in the territory being served and two-thirds of the voters in the territory to be served" to approve before any local government could proceed with power procurement, effectively closing the door on any further CCAs and preventing MEA from expanding its service area.

In typical fashion, PG&E has disguised the true objectives of Prop 16 under a high-minded appeal to protect the voters' right to choose.

Got that? A utility company is willing to spend $35 million in an altruistic effort to protect your rights as a voter! It's an inversion of the truth that would make Orwell blush.

David vs. Goliath

Because municipalities are forbidden by law from such activism, the MEA can only defend itself through a small independent activist group funded by private donations. I don't know the exact numbers, but it looks like the funding balance is roughly $35 million vs. $100,000, at best.

Here are the facts:

PG&E has failed to meet the state 20% renewable portfolio standard (RPS) target for 2010, and it is in no way prepared to meet the proposed 33% by 2020 standard.
It has failed to produce the efficiency gains that $450 million a year in state funding should have achieved, and has apparently used the money as a political slush fund while hiding where their alleged efficiency gains came from.
It has successfully lobbied to limit renewable generation by its customers under net metering to a small fraction (from 0.5% initially to 5% now) of peak demand loads, when it makes no sense from a public interest standpoint for there to be a cap at all.
And it continues to parlay a few million dollars here and there in handouts for efficiency improvements in exchange for political favors, while vigorously lobbying for billions of dollars in new transmission lines, new natural gas power plants, and new nuclear plants... all while misrepresenting those projects as being much cleaner, and greener, than they actually are.

For example, when the CPUC asked PG&E and Southern California Edison to sign a pledge affirming their claim that a proposed multi-billion dollar new transmission line stretching from just below the Mexican border to San Diego would be used only to import renewable power, the utilities declined. Their true intent was to use the line to import power from new natural gas-fired plants in Mexico.

Indeed, PG&E is now one of the top lobbyists for nuclear power on Capitol Hill, seeking billions of dollars in loan guarantees for new nuclear plants, even as it tries to choke off the deployment of rooftop solar power.

The utility's chutzpah is breathtaking, particularly considering that they have just received the largest rate hike in history, and have another $5 billion in rate hikes now pending before the CPUC. And that's on top of the roughly $20 billion they received for the bankruptcy bailout in the wake of the Enron debacle, which we're all still paying off on our monthly bills.

For its part, the CPUC fiddles around the edges of the utilities' proposals in an attempt to create the illusion of guarding the public interest, while its president Michael Peevey (the former Vice President of Southern California Edison) rubber stamps them.

The conflict of interest is painfully clear. A mass transition to distributed renewable power is the best hope for the future of local communities, but PG&E has nothing to gain from it and everything to lose.

They will stand to profit handsomely from building billions of dollars' worth of new gas- and nuke-based power infrastructure, but will lose when customers generate their own power and cut waste through higher efficiency.

Even in California, with its abundant sunshine and its high electricity prices, the push for renewables is a David vs. Goliath scenario... and CCAs are the stone.

The War for Solar in Hawaii

In a remarkably similar tale, a report from Hawaii last month detailed how the Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) proposed a total ban on rooftop solar systems connected to their grid. The move was in response to the unveiling of an aggressive new feed-in tariff (FIT) program adopted by the state PUC.

HECO had originally supported the FIT, and committed to a broad agenda that would obtain 70% of the state's power from clean energy by 2030. But when the program became real, it backpedaled with the usual whining and hand-wringing about maintaining grid stability, proposing instead that it form a working group to study (read: delay) the issue further.

As my readers know, I believe that FITs are the most effective, tried-and-true policy approach around for encouraging distributed renewable power, and I have hailed Hawaii's FIT as a promising step toward a national FIT model.

If the U.S. had any sense or vision at all, it would make Hawaii a proving ground for distributed renewable power. Being isolated, it is utterly dependent on imported fossil fuels, which provide 96% of its energy. Consequently, it pays the highest electricity rates in the nation.

Hawaii also has abundant sunshine and enormous marine energy potential. With the impetus of the FIT, it could show the rest of the country exactly how much of America's fossil fuel habit could be cured through renewables.

At this point, I don't know exactly what's behind HECO's ban... but it doesn't take much imagination to guess. Scratch a hoary utility, and you'll quickly find its fossil fuel bedfellows.

The next big play of North America’s Oil Comeback

Breakthrough drilling technology has turned an abandoned Alberta oil field into the hottest energy territory in the Western Hemisphere...

And one $4-a-share company is positioned for the lion’s share of the spoils. Click here for the on-site proof that 1,239% gains await early investors.

The War On Greenhouse Gases

Another fight is now unfolding in California, as the so-called "California Jobs Initiative" — an entity backed by oil and gas companies — has raised nearly $1 million to put an initiative on the state ballot for November that would suspend the state's new emissions law, AB 32.

According to SolveClimate blogger Leslie Berliant, the group has issued a stream of factually incorrect fearmongering claims about the jobs that will be lost in the state as AB 32 is enforced, while funding studies that cast doubt on the number of green jobs that would be created under it.

If the initiative passed, it would stop the state's planned cap-and-trade program until California has four consecutive quarters of unemployment below 5.5%... something that has only happened twice (in 2000 and 2006) and seems highly unlikely to happen again any time soon, if ever.

The War for Wind

Meanwhile, Danish journalists confirmed this week that the Institute for Energy Research (IER), an American think tank with close ties to the coal and oil industries, had commissioned and paid for a report released last year by a Danish think tank that made numerous false and disparaging claims about Denmark's wind industry.

The study concluded that coal is cheaper than wind, conveniently ignoring the true costs of coal while assiduously counting all the costs of wind, and then some.

According to a post at Desmogblog, IER's CEO Robert Bradley was formerly the Director of Public Relations Policy at Enron, where he wrote speeches for "Kenny Boy" Lay. IER's connections extend to notorious fossil fuel companies and front groups including Koch Industries, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, TASSC, the Cato Institute, and the Heritage Foundation; yet they shamelessly accuse the Obama administration of being too cozy with wind energy lobbyists.

Pick a Side

It's becoming abundantly clear that if communities want to have a resilient, secure, local renewable supply, they're going to have to fight for it — and fight hard.

The businesses that control the power sector now are not going to just give up their grip on it, nor are they going to lead the transition to renewables. They're going to oppose it at every turn with delay tactics, dirty tricks, outright lies, and anything else that will give them an edge.

And they have far deeper ties to policymakers — and far deeper pockets with which to wage the war — than anybody in the renewables business does. By a wide, wide margin.

What's good for them is not good for communities, and vice versa. There will be no bridging of that gap. Nor would it be rational to expect investor-owned companies to act against their own self-interests for the benefit of the public.

The residents of Marin County are already being asked to choose a side in the war for the future of energy. Soon the rest of the country will be asked too. Do you have the will to form a stone like MEA? And if you do, will you have the will to throw it?

I say: ¡Viva la Revolución!

I'll close with a few more lines from the song I quoted above:

Since it cost a lot to win
and even more to lose
You and me bound to spend some time
wondering what to choose

Goes to show you don't ever know
Watch each card you play
and play it slow
Wait until your deal come around
Don't you let that deal go down.

— Robert Hunter, "Deal"

Until next time,

Chris

Editor's Note: While California may be bowing to the pressure of large utilities, Canada is doing the exact opposite. In British Columbia, a new gov't task force has been created to get rid of fossil fuel-based electricity generation and replace it with renewable resources.

Their $30 billion budget will not only provide the province with clean power, it'll also create huge profits for investors that know where that money is headed. Our new report on Canada's energy takeover has all the details you need to get in early.

An Investment in Smart Grid Software

It has taken awhile to arrive, but one of the more interesting — if unsung and unsexy — sectors in energy right now is software. (Below, I share a smart way to profit right now off this burgeoning sector.)

A whole array of new applications is finally hitting the streets: Systems that let consumers monitor their energy usage. Software that helps utilities redesign their grids to accommodate more distributed generation. Solar system design tools. Smart grid management systems. Bigger, better databases of actual solar insolation (sunlight), actual component performance, and actual customer usage, all slowly being integrated together.

Consider, as an example, the transformation that has happened in solar site evaluations in just four years.

Billionaires' Game-changing Fossil Fuel Gamble

Ladies and gentlemen, we're witnessing the end of an energy era.

George Soros and T. Boone Pickens know it -- which is why they're investing millions of dollars in the world's next biggest "future fuel."

Click here to find out how their gamble in this new energy giant could bring you upwards of 1,925% gains.

Swapping Hardware for Software

Here's what I had to do to bid on a rooftop solar PV system in 2006.

I would arrive at the customer's house with a 16-foot folding ladder and a backpack full of gear. I would spend half an hour going through several years of paper bills (if they had them), copying the kilowatt-hours used each month onto a piece of paper.

Then I would climb up on the roof and look for the best, unshaded location to install the modules. I would use a bulky, domed device to make a drawing of the shading profile on a paper grid.

Then I would spend an hour or more making a hand drawing of the roof, measuring every surface and penetration. I needed two kinds of physical tape measures and a laser measure. I carried a special, foot-long angle meter to measure the slopes. A hand compass would give me the right orientation for all my gear... if some nearby interference didn't throw off the magnet.

I would shoot dozens of pictures and video clips of every roof, hoping to capture details that I might have missed on my hand drawing.

Back at my office, I would re-create the drawing in a CAD program, which could take hours.

I copied the usage data into a spreadsheet, which had very coarse-grained historical data for the hours of sunlight typically received in a given city. Then I would eyeball my drawing of the shading profile, and enter the amount of shading that I thought the system would receive at each hour of the day at various times of the year.

This tool allowed me to estimate the output of a given system design.

Then I would return to the CAD drawing and try to fit the equipment I needed onto the roof, consulting the photos and video as I went. Then I'd have to change the equipment in the estimation spreadsheet.

Rounds of adjustments would be needed to get the system right. Then I would draw in all the associated equipment, and calculate the racking down to the last nut and bolt.

A final spreadsheet would take data from the other spreadsheets and let me generate a financial model based on coarse historical data about the price of energy. And all of the spreadsheets were created in-house by a talented software engineer.

It would take a minimum of six hours just to produce a detailed bid, before the sale was even made. It often took far, far more. It's one reason why I decided to get out of the business.

Now consider what it takes today, just four years later.

There are now over a dozen apps that will almost replace that backpack full of gear with an iPhone.

The angle meter? Gone. You can lay the iPhone on the roof and it will tell you the angle, or you can stand on the ground and shoot the roofline and it will calculate it. The compass? Gone. Even the camera — gone. You can shoot pictures of the site with the iPhone, then automatically stitch them together into a panoramic photo.

Name your site, and the latitude, longitude, elevation and altitude are automatically downloaded via GPS. Pan the camera around, and it figures out the shading, then shows you the path of the sun at various times of the day and the year. Check your overhangs and your solar window, and work around your roof penetrations in a snap.

Then just choose your equipment of choice from the built-in database and the enter the local price of a kilowatt-hour.

Boom. In a couple of minutes, I could do what used to take hours. Sun plot and shading maps, an equipment list, and rough estimates of the system's production and the financials—done.

Other apps will even help you size the wire and conduits, convert units (like Btu to kWh), and make graphs.

For a field rep, the advancement is nothing short of phenomenal. All that's missing now is a way to download customer usage data from the utility right into an app, and some next generation solar add-ons to CAD software.

Software for Efficiency

Software is poised to make as much improvement in energy auditing as it has in PV site evaluations, and in about the same period of time.

Just a few years ago, a highly trained energy auditor would spend hours (or weeks) crawling all over buildings and mechanical rooms, counting light bulbs, copying down nameplate data from HVAC and other systems, poring over floor plans, taking lots of photos, doing data entry in clunky homegrown spreadsheets, and eventually trying to integrate it into various modeling tools that didn't work well together. But no more.

A new system by startup kWhOURS, Inc. promises to slash the time required to perform an audit to a fraction of what it was, and automate the production of reports. It will export spreadsheets and play nice with standard analysis software developed by the DOE.

The San Francisco company Recurve has developed an internal system to streamline its own energy auditing and make it easier to design energy efficiency retrofits. Various builders across the country are now testing the software, which is likely headed for licensing.

On the hardware side, Recurve founder Matt Golden (a friend of mine) has also recently helped formulate a proposal for a new federal efficiency program called HOMESTAR, which would offer rebates up to $3,000 for a host of home efficiency upgrades including windows, insulation, caulking, and sealing for ducts, doors, and windows. President Obama outlined the program this month, touting the thousands of jobs it will create, and savings of as much as $500 a year for participants.

As my readers know, I have long been a champion of energy efficiency retrofits as the low-hanging fruit in addressing our energy challenge. And as Golden points out, over 90% of the materials needed to perform them are "Made in the U.S.A."

Software for PV on the Smart Grid

A slate of software projects recently approved for $9.3 million in grants under the California Solar Initiative Research, Development, Deployment and Demonstration Program are tackling some of the larger challenges of the "smart grid"...with substantial matching funds.

The projects will be administered by Itron, Inc. (NASDAQ: ITRI), a longtime smart metering favorite.

One in particular, a proposal from Clean Power Research (CPR), caught my attention. With a budget of over $3 million, it will develop a model of solar resources using satellite data. Spatial resolution will be enhanced from 100 km² today to 1 km², and temporal resolution from 1 hour to 30 minutes. The system will be built upon an open-source distribution engineering and analysis tool used by utilities, and integrated with PV performance and economic screening data, to help identify the locations with the best potential for high penetration of PV systems.

When completed, the system will be made freely available to the public in California, and should vastly improve the industry's ability to deploy and integrate distributed solar into the network. The participation of various entities from New York and Arizona in the project suggests that the tool could be adapted eventually by other states.

A similar $1.3 million proposal from SunPower Corp. (NASDAQ: SPWRA) will improve temporal resolution of solar resources all the way down to 1 second, and integrate with SunPower's monitoring data and standard simulation tools to help grid operators maintain grid stability in near-real time as sunshine comes and goes in various areas.

Six other projects will work on communications between PV systems, smart meters and utilities; help customers determine the right mix of efficiency measures, energy storage, demand response, and PV; help utilities identify and correct weaknesses in the distribution infrastructure; improve inverter performance; and enable utilities to improve grid control, maintain voltage stability as cloud cover comes and goes, and perform better forecasting.

Recently, my colleagues at Green Chip uncovered a still hardly heard of company with the technology that could, in fact, be the backbone of the new Smart Grid. This technology is a next generation electrical system that's quickly replacing the antiquated and outdated current electrical grid.

In just three months' time, this tech allowed our publishing offices in Baltimore to cut energy bills by 44%, because this particular device saves energy in a way we've never before seen. It is this kind of innovation that will allow us to monitor energy usage, use energy as efficiently as possible, and preserve the future of our grid.

The best leadership in the energy revolution that Silicon Valley can offer is not in seeking the "next big thing" as Vinod Khosla is doing, nor is it in trying to drive carbon to zero in energy, as Bill Gates exhorted in his recent TED conference address.

Instead, it's in doing exactly what it's best at: software and embedded systems. Not silver bullets, but silver BBs.

Hey Bill G — How about working on an open standard with Apple and Google and appliance manufacturers to deliver some sexy consumer energy monitoring solutions for the iPhone?

No, really.

Until next time,

Chris

Masamune's Secret Metal

Six centuries ago, a Japanese sword master accidentally dropped some into the steel he was making... creating the first ever true Samurai Katana blade.

Today, it's the cornerstone of a $987 billion-a-year industry.

Find out how you can bank up to 2682% as one tiny mining company taps into one of the world's last remaining untouched deposits.

How to Rebuild America

Dear Congress,

We, the American People, want a New Deal for energy.

We're tired of watching the rest of the world kick the clean energy industry into high gear while we're still stuck in neutral, debating a weak cap-and-trade bill that doesn't come close to meeting our energy challenge.

Indeed, we believe the focus on climate change is fundamentally misguided. We should be thinking about what we put into the engine, not what comes out of the tailpipe. If we get energy transition right, the emissions problem will take care of itself. Incentivize, don't penalize.

The "shovel ready" stimpak was nice, but we know that most of those jobs won't be permanent. We also know that far more of it went to the dead end of roads and cars than to real, long-term fixes to our energy crisis.

Consider rail, the most viable solution to our oil-guzzling problem. You spent decades starving Amtrak of the funding that would make it truly viable, then doled out a paltry $13 billion stimulus for high-speed rail in America. That's about 2% of what you need to spend on it. Meanwhile, China is spending $556 billion on a rail construction plan that will link nearly all its provincial cities in the next five years. The Shanghai-Beijing link alone is expected to create half a million jobs.

The desire for instant jobs gratification has actually done rail more harm than good. Directing the understaffed Federal Railroad Administration to sort through hundreds of plans and distribute a huge chunk of stimulus money as quickly as possible, before it had a chance to develop its national high-speed rail plan, bogged the agency down, and misdirected its priorities, effectively setting back real progress.

Short-term thinking is what got us into this mess, and it's not going to get us out.

We're all for unleashing the can-do spirit and manufacturing might of America. We're ready to do our part. But we're going to need more than short term support. It's going to take more than a one-year program to restore jobs that we spent three decades sending offshore.

The incentives that Congress has created for renewables and efficiency have always had the fatal flaw of being too short-lived. The resulting boom-and-bust cycles were devastating, and caused America to lose the edge in clean tech. Meanwhile, countries that made 20-year commitments to transforming their energy systems have become the world's leaders in it.

It's also time to tell us the truth about the future of energy. We understand now that we have a real problem which no amount of drilling or military intervention is going to cure. In return we promise that this time, we won't crucify you—like we did President Carter.

The Challenge

Here is our reality:

• Oil production has peaked. Supply will be flattish for the next 2-4 years, then begin a long decline.

• We will lose roughly 25% of our oil supply in 25 years; 50% in 50 years; 100% in 100 years.

• To compensate for the decline of oil with renewables, the world would need to build the equivalent of the entire world's existing renewable energy capacity, every year.

• Since that is impossible, efficiency and a long transition to renewably powered infrastructure must make up the shortfall. This will take 50 years or more to achieve.

• It's likely that we will also see the peaks of natural gas and coal in the next 20 years. Hydropower and nuclear will do little more than hold their current market share.

• By the end of the century, nearly everything will have to be powered by renewably-generated electricity, not liquids or gases.

The cap-and-trade bill's aim to cut 600,000 barrels per day off U.S. oil demand — which is currently 19 million barrels per day (mbpd) — over a period of 10 years is a joke. That's roughly the same amount that U.S. demand has grown over the last year.

We need to cut closer to 2 mbpd in 10 years, 6 mbpd in 20 years, 8 mbpd in 30 years and 10 mbpd in 40 years.

Do you have what it takes to confront this challenge, knowing that some of the solutions will be politically unpopular, impact your constituents back
home, and take many times longer than your term in office to achieve?

Can you do what authoritarian and parliamentary governments elsewhere are already doing?

How to Rebuild America

It's time to come up with a real plan, an honest plan, to rebuild America under a new energy paradigm. One with serious, achievable 30-year and 50-year milestones that will slash our need for fossil fuels.

A plan based on facts and science, not political expediency. One that will create true, long-term wealth, prosperity, resiliency, and self-sufficiency.

We need a Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security to prepare the country for the decline of oil, not sweet lies from the EIA which completely ignore it. As Lester Brown observed, "only Sweden and Iceland actually have anything that remotely resembles a plan to effectively cope with a shrinking supply of oil."

We want to stop spending half a trillion dollars a year for imported oil, and develop a defense strategy for the day when our imports dry up.

We need stable, simple feed-in tariffs, which have been proven successes in Germany, Japan and Spain...not complex, corruptible, ineffectual policies like cap-and-trade or cap-and-tax. And we need them for 30 years, not one.

We want solar on every rooftop, a wind turbine in every field and a micro-hydro turbine in every running stream, wherever viable resources exist. Distributed generation is resilient, and brings value to every community. Along with it, we need distributed power storage, and a smart grid with micro-islanding so we can fall back on our own resources if the grid goes down.

We want a plan to manage our resources for the long term health of our society, like Norway and Saudi Arabia have. Instead of planning to use our remaining oil and gas so we can drive in inefficient cars more cheaply, we should be planning to convert it into the renewables and efficiency gains we'll need in the future.

We want a defensive strategy for our grid with hardening against cyber-attacks.

We need to reverse the long process of globalization and bring manufacturing back home. Instead of a society now dependent on complex, world-spanning, highly optimized supply chains, we need local resiliency, redundancy, and diversity in all the essential sectors: energy, water, food, and security.

Finally, we need energy education at all levels — from the street to the universities, from business to government employees.

Do you have the guts to tell the truth about our energy challenge, and bring America up to speed on what she must do? Or will you wimp out and kick the can down the road a little farther, as your predecessors have, leaving America to learn about it the hard way and pay a price so much higher than it would be today?

Time to Act — Wisely

The days of economic growth may be gone forever for import-dependent developed countries like the United States, unless we downsize, relocalize, and work hard on energy transition.

Green Chip Publisher Jeff Siegel has been hard at work on a major research report that centers on one Canadian province's effort to rid itself of dirty energy, once and for all. You can read all about the BC renewable revolution right here. We might be wise to take a lesson from our neighbors to the North...

What we need now is an honest, long-range strategy. We need to build rail, rip up roads and unwanted, unsustainable housing, replant farmland, massively beef up the electrical grid, and deploy millions of renewable energy generators — the more distributed, the better.

By planning for it now, we could achieve a somewhat orderly transition away from liquid fuels and toward efficient electric transport. We'll still create millions of new jobs, only they'll be the right jobs. Jobs that won't disappear the next time oil spikes.

Congress cannot meet this challenge without teamwork and good sportsmanship. The Greens, the Browns, the Department of Energy, Congress and all of us must work together. It will take sacrifice on all sides.

We sincerely hope you are up to the challenge.

Until next time,

Chris

Millions of Lives Saved -- A Handful of Early Investors Made RICH...

According to our resident biotech expert, one small American company's "cell-shock" technology will soon be the global Gold Standard for the treatment and prevention of all the major cancers, influenza, malaria, HIV, and more...

Saving tens of millions of lives annually worldwide.

Click HERE before the news spreads to get in on the 100,000% gains that are all but guaranteed to follow this breakthrough.

'Peak Oil Demand,' Yes... But Not the Nice Kind

When oil crossed $120 a barrel for the first time in May 2008, oil cornucopians knew they were in trouble...

Prices had quadrupled in just five years, yet had failed to bring new production online. Regular crude had flatlined around 74 million barrels per day (mbpd). The case for peak oil was looking stronger with every new uptick in crude futures.

The following month, prominent peak oil critic and cornucopian Daniel Yergin of IHS-CERA changed his stance: The peak oil threat would be neutralized by peak demand. Gasoline consumption had peaked in the U.S. and Europe, he argued, due to the combined effects of increasing efficiency, biofuels, and the recession.

In 2009 the peak demand story seemed confirmed, as prices stabilized around $70 in June, and U.S. consumption remained well off its previous high. Most people thought the nearly 2 mbpd decline in U.S. petroleum demand from 2007 through 2009 owed to efficiency and people driving less.

In reality, only about 15% owed to reduced gasoline demand. The other 85% was lost in the commercial and industrial sector: jet fuel, distillates (including diesel), kerosene, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants, waxes, petroleum coke, asphalt and road oil, and other miscellaneous products.

Very simply, when oil got to $120 a barrel it cut into real productivity, and forced the world's most developed economies to shrink. At $147, it wreaked serious damage.

Beat Big Pharma to the Profits on A Breakthrough That's Bigger Than Penicillin

Right under the nose of the drug giants, this small American company has developed the genetic key to eradicating the world's deadliest diseases -- influenza, malaria, HIV, and many of the major killer cancers...

Get in on this tiny stock before news of their breakthrough "cell-shock" technology gets out -- and your chance at 1000 times your money is gone forever.

As I explained in "Investment Themes for the Next Decade," the new normal will be cycles of bumping our heads against the supply ceiling, falling dazed to the floor, rising back to our knees, then finally standing... only to bump our heads against the ceiling once more.

Scooters Will Kill SUVs

Two interesting news stories crossed the wire this week, which portend badly for the world's #1 net importer, the U.S.

The first was a Reuters report that the last quarter of 2009 had "wiped out" the equity of Mexican state oil monopoly Pemex, leaving it $1.4 billion in the negative. Falling crude output, falling refining margins and a burgeoning dependency of the state on its revenues had squeezed it to death.

Not only did the report offer further confirmation that the oil export crisis has arrived, but it also confirmed my growing suspicion that the oil production everyone has assumed will come online in five to ten years might, in fact, fail to materialize. Negative equity companies have a hard time raising capital for new exploration.

The second was a Bloomberg report that Saudi Arabia had agreed to double its oil exports to India, to some 866,000 barrels per day. India indicated separately that its onshore production of oil may peak this year.

This adds to the pressure on Saudi Arabia's exports, whose oil shipments to China have been growing at a rate of 11%-12% per year and now stand at roughly 1 million barrels per day (mbpd). China has eclipsed the U.S. as the primary bidder for Saudi oil, while U.S. imports from the Persian nation have fallen to a 22-year low.

The last two years have seen the marginal buyers of oil shift decisively to the non-OECD countries. A gallon of fuel delivers so much value in China and India (think peasants on scooters), that even at $120 a barrel, remarkable economic growth rates are possible.

In major oil exporting countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela — where subsidized gasoline still sells for under 25 cents a gallon — the appetite for fuel grows steadily every year with little thought given to efficiency.

It's a different story in the U.S. For debt-laden consumers, an extra $50 or $75 to fill up the tank on an SUV every week sharply reduced discretionary income and starved the economy of its most fundamental driver: consumer demand.

The Real Meaning of Peak Demand

The most promising effort I've seen to quantify the role of efficiency in peak demand was a report in October of last year by Paul Sankey of Deutsche Bank entitled, "The Peak Oil Market." My initial excitement quickly gave way to disappointment as dug into it, however, as I realized that its confident assertions were unsupported by the data.

I applauded the effort enthusiastically — and I hope to see more serious work along the same lines — but it fell far short of proving that energy transition can be accomplished under the status quo of economic growth, let alone its optimistic twist on "The end is nigh for the age of oil."

The fact is that peak demand in the OECD is not merely a function of efficiency gains and biofuels substitution, aided by a temporary recession...

Instead, peak demand will be the result of a permanent state of increasing depression in which non-OECD countries not only more than make up for the loss of OECD demand, but outbid them for the marginal barrel.

Why Stalin's "lost oil" could bank you 180 times your money by this time next year

Joseph Stalin isn't widely known for the mistake he made nearly 70 years ago...

But he should be, because it stands to make a handful of savvy investors quite rich in the coming months.

In fact those who know what we've just uncovered could make as much as 180 times their money.

Read our latest report now before this story makes headline news.

As we enter the post-peak phase of global oil supply sometime around 2012-2014, the price that heavily import-dependent countries like the U.S. would have to pay for that marginal barrel will become increasingly intolerable. In a weakened economy, $100 a barrel (or less) could be the new $120.

The true import of peak oil, therefore, may not be sustained high prices, but economic shrinkage. Demand will be destroyed long before oil gets to $200 a barrel, but it will not be destroyed by improved efficiency.

From where we stand today, it's hard to make an argument for economic recovery. Persistently high unemployment rates, broken state and federal balance sheets, and an inflationary depression will continue to cut into petroleum demand.

We spent the last several decades offshoring the fundamental value-adding sectors like energy production and manufacturing, and now our FIRE economy — finance, insurance, and real estate — rests entirely on real value created elsewhere.

The reason is simple: Energy is the only real currency.

Every dollar of fiat currency or GDP was ultimately derived from cheap energy. Trying to print your way out of energy decline is like prescribing ever-higher doses of aspirin for a headache caused by a brain tumor. Yet those at the levers of monetary policy are, by all appearances, completely ignorant (or in willful denial) of this fundamental fact.

The vogue prescription for the sovereign debtors at greatest risk of default (see a Top 10 list) is "austerity measures." The theory is that a period of belt-tightening will stanch the fiscal bleeding until economic recovery puts everyone into the black again.

Yet, if primary energy supply is declining, and the rising star of developing economies is inexorably cutting into the supply available to developed and indebted economies, then there can be no recovery.

I have joked on Twitter that I'm expecting an "M-shaped recovery," where we're now on the second hump. A more accurate image is slow strangulation.

Two Questions for Recoveryistas

Those who would argue for economic recovery must answer two intractable questions.

The first is: Where will the energy come from, as more of the world's net exporters become net importers?

Britain, Argentina, Indonesia, and others have become net importers in recent years. Mexico and Columbia are expected to follow suit within a decade. Clearly, we can't all be net energy importers.

There is also the obstinate fact that aggregate net energy — the energy you get in return for investing energy in its production — has been dropping steadily. Oil net energy dropped from 100 in the early 1930s to 11 or less today. Net energy for natural gas is now in decline. We don't have adequate data to know yet, but coal's net energy is probably in decline too. Meanwhile, the net energy of all substitutes is low: wind, 18; solar, 6.8; nuclear, 5-15; all biofuels, under 2.

It is not surprising that a study of the Herold database (Gagnon, Hall, and Brinker, 2009) showed the amount of oil and gas produced per dollar spent declined between 1999 and 2006.

The second question is: If the creeping infection of sovereign default continues to spread to more countries, where will the money come from to bail them out?

The answer has been, and continues to be, more aspirin. Without more cheap energy, monetary tactics to play the game into overtime will not only be futile, they will only draw us closer to the edge of the net energy cliff.

All of which begs a final question: If the answers are transition to renewables, and rebuilding our infrastructure for high efficiency, then where will the money and energy to do it all come from? And lastly, how long will it hold out?

Without cheap energy to fuel the growth that is hoped to pay off the accumulated debt, austerity will become an everyday reality — not a short-term fix. A reality that slowly sinks in for the rest of our lives, as net importers become progressively poorer.

The peak demand argument is a good one... but not for the nice reasons.

Until next time,

Chris

Investor's Note: Transitioning to renewables is much more difficult than you might think. The sad truth is that bridging the energy gap between oil and renewables is going to take decades to accomplish and cost trillions of dollars. However, we do have one option: natural gas... And unconventional gas fields are one of the few gems left in our domestic energy picture.

I know some of my readers have made a small fortune trading these up-and-coming companies operating in these burgeoning shale companies. If you're interested in learning more about these profitable natural gas plays, simply click here.

The Verdict on the Bloom Box and the 60 Minutes Coup

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

(1 Corinthians 13:11)

Judging by the excitement around the unveiling of the Bloom Box, you'd think it was the Second Coming.

The green blogs fell all over themselves repeating the breathless "Holy Grail" speculations in Lesley Stahl's 60 Minutes report, which was indistinguishable from an in-house marketing puff piece.

Bloom Energy's media blitz ended eight years in stealth mode, and the star-studded coming-out ceremony on Wednesday featured notables such as board member Gen. Colin Powell, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, legendary VC John Doerr of Kleiner, Perkins, Caulfield & Byers, Google co-founder Larry Page, eBay CEO John Donahoe, and Wal-Mart COO Bill Simon.

The market could dwarf the Internet, they said. It's like another Google. It's a "disruptive technology" akin to cell phones replacing land lines. It will slash CO2 emissions and replace the grid. It's twice as efficient as grid power generation. Its technology is based on common beach sand, not expensive and corrosive materials. It will "change the world." (Cue Tom Waits' "Step Right Up.")

They congratulated themselves with bear hugs and "I love you, man"s.

What the coal industry doesn't want you to know can

Make you a lot of money!

Click here for more.

Bloom Energy CEO KR Sridhar's laid out his bold vision: Bloom Boxes would provide affordable, abundant, reliable, clean electricity to every home and business and light up the dark areas of the world — in a decade. It's "a market size that starts with a ‘T'," not a ‘B', he said at the company's 2002 launch.

After a decade of studying energy, such claims instantly arouse my skepticism. I had to take a closer look.

What It Is

The Bloom Box is a mini power plant based on fuel cell technology. Fuel cells use an electrochemical (not thermal) process to separate the protons and electrons of the fuel and then pass the electrons through a circuit to generate electricity. At the end of the process, the protons and electrons recombine along with oxygen.

If the fuel is pure hydrogen, the emissions will be pure water, but if the fuel is a hydrocarbon, emissions will also contain carbon dioxide.

Fuel cells aren't new. The first was invented by a Swiss-German chemist named Christian Friedrich Schönbein in 1838, and at least 20 different designs now exist. A long history of companies has attempted to bring a cost-effective and practical device to market, and in the last decade hundreds of millions of dollars have been poured into their research and development.

None have achieved real commercial viability yet. According to data assembled by Fuel Cells 2000, fewer than 1,000 units are in operation or planned worldwide. One of the top public U.S. fuel cell manufacturers, Fuel Cell Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: FCEL) has a mere 90 installations worldwide, and its stock has been moribund since 2002.

What's new about the Bloom Box is that it claims to be high efficiency (producing more power with less waste heat than other fuel cells), small, relatively cheap, and able to run on a variety of fuels including natural gas, landfill gas, and biogas. Its solid oxide design reportedly uses zirconium oxide for the proton-exchange membrane.

Let's have a look at the numbers, assembled from Bloom's statements and various blogs.

One cell produces 25 watts. A "residential sized" stack of cells produces 1 kilowatt (kW), which Sridhar claims could be on the market at a price point of $3000 in five years.

A 100 kilowatt system (before incentives) costs $700,000 to $800,000. For my purposes I'll take the high estimate and call it $8,000/kW.

Most units will run on natural gas. Assuming the gas costs $7 per million BTU, the cost of generation is in the $0.13 to $0.14 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) range, before subsidies. After factoring in the federal 30% investment tax credit, the $2,500/kW California rebate, and the claimed 10-year lifespan, the unit should produce power for roughly $0.08 to $0.10/kWh. The average retail grid power price in the U.S. is about $0.11/kWh.

Under those metrics, the company claims it will take three to five years to pay itself off, including the cost of swapping out the used-up fuel cell stack twice during the 10-year warranty period or not. This strikes me as a highly dubious claim.

The CO2 emissions when running on natural gas are reportedly 0.8 pounds/kWh, as compared with 2 pounds/kWh for coal-fired plants and 1.3 pounds/kWh for natural gas-fired plants. Hence the squishy claim that the unit produces power with "half the emissions" of grid power from natural gas.

What the coal industry doesn't want you to know can

Make you a lot of money!

Click here for more.

What It Isn't

First, a 1 kW unit isn't enough to power a house in the U.S. I know from my experience in the solar business that 2.5 kW on an averaged demand basis is more like it.

Peak demand loads can be much higher. For example, a hair dryer, a microwave, and a toaster together could draw more than 5 kW. Large houses can need 10 kW or more on average. So even at Sridhar's $3000 price point for a 1 kW unit, a residential application would cost more like $7500.

But long experience in watching "breakthrough" devices like this come to market tells me that one has to discount the initial claims by at least a factor of two. So the real price point will probably be closer to $6000/kW in five years, or $3000 in ten, in which case the unit might never pay itself off in a residential application over the 10-year warranty period.

A quick calculation by Editor Rembrandt Koppelaar at The Oil Drum also questions the payback period. Assuming $0.10/kWh for grid power and an $800,000 cost for a 100 kW unit, he calculates it would pay itself off in 15 years — five years longer than its expected lifespan.

The eBay installation featured in the rollout offers a final example. The scant available information about this installation suggests that it consists of five 100 kW units, at a cost of $800,000 each, which have saved the company $100,000 in grid power costs over nine months. If that surmise is correct, then the $4 million installation will pay for itself in 30 years.

Second, since nearly all customers will run the unit on natural gas, it doesn't fulfill the claims of clean, abundant, or cheap power.

If my expectation of a global natural gas peak in the 2020-2025 range is correct, it could in reality make the situation worse, by moving significant loads to natural gas just as supply starts to flatten out.

In effect, it would allow us to crawl farther out on the fossil-fuel limb just before it cracks.

It definitely won't make sense to use solar power to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen in order to use the hydrogen in a fuel cell. It would be far more efficient, and cheaper, to simply use the solar power.

Third, the suggestion that it will "replace the grid" is simply nonsense. Few of the customers in the commercial market will generate all of their power with Bloom Boxes (the high-profile campuses currently testing the units get 15% of their power or less from them), and most buildings already have grid connections. The units might eventually replace some of the load carried by utility power plants, but that's about it.

Even a residential application would not eliminate the need for grid power unless it was sized to meet peak loads, which would not make economic sense.

Finally, and most importantly, there is the scale problem. I don't know what universe you'd have to live in to think that a company currently producing one unit a day is going to put several billion of them into operation in one decade, or even five. Particularly if your outlook on capital markets for the next five decades is informed by an education in peak fossil fuels.

The Verdict

The Bloom Box doesn't belong in any discussion about renewable, clean power, or changing the world.

The main effect of the device would be to transfer some of the power generation load off centralized coal plants and onto distributed natural gas plants.

Few customers — and probably only commercial and industrial ones, at that — will have the option of running it on biogas or landfill gas. For the slightly more than half of the homes in the U.S. that even have a natural gas line, it won't make economic sense.

Therefore, I do not expect it to become a viable residential application. Nor do I expect it to light up the Third World without installing a network of natural gas lines — in itself, an unlikely proposition.

A fair comparison would be to a standard natural gas-fired backup generator. A quick Google search finds an 18 kW Briggs & Stratton natural gas backup generator for $4,200. If $3,000 will get me a 1 kW Bloom Box, then an 18 kW device would be $54,000. Is that a price premium any homeowner would pay for slightly reduced emissions?

For another cost comparison, at $8000/kW, rooftop solar (after incentives) is cheaper today. As long as you have a functioning grid, the 24x7 benefit of a fuel cell (assuming uninterrupted natural gas supply) wouldn't be worth the cost premium over solar. And once it's installed, a solar PV system consumes no fuel, and produces no emissions.

By time a Bloom Box goes for $3,000/kW, my bet is that solar will still be cheaper. Should natural gas prices go to $15 or $20 in the next decade (a not unreasonable proposition) then solar will be half the price, or less, and the payback period for the fuel cell would lengthen considerably.

What it can do is allow commercial customers to claim some green cred for reduced emissions while paying close to the going market rate for power.

However, I expect a solid handful of more mature companies (like FuelCell Energy, Kyocera, UTC, and Ballard Technologies) to give them a run for their money.

If the Bloom Box does, in fact, sport a 50% efficiency gain over utility plants — which I think still needs to be proved — then that should confer an advantage on it in the form of carbon reduction incentives. That may be the best advantage the Bloom Box has.

There are certainly important intangible benefits in distributed generation and baseload (24x7) capacity, as my readers well know.

However, the Bloom Box's reliance on natural gas cannot be overlooked, and it appears that nearly everyone has overlooked it here.

The short lifespan of the device and the need to swap out the cell stack every five years must be factored in as well. The cost of maintenance and the availability of service technicians are important questions that still loom over the Bloom.

By comparison, a rooftop solar installation is low tech, low maintenance, and far more durable.

In short, I view the Bloom Box as a modest gain over the status quo in natural gas fired power supply. A world-changer it is not.

Too Big To Grail

The most interesting part of the Bloom Box story is the social aspect.

Lesley Stahl's gushing 60 Minutes take on the Bloom Box was, in so many ways, a paragon of everything that's wrong with energy coverage in the media.

She was in hot pursuit of "the next big thing," and found the unit to be "awfully dazzling" in a market "worth bazillions."

"I'm installing a power plant!" she exclaimed with childlike glee, as she peeled the shipping packaging off a new unit.

She was obviously very impressed that the technology was an inversion of an invention that could produce oxygen so people could live on Mars.

Her opening statement, "In the world of energy, the Holy Grail is a power source that's inexpensive and clean, with no emissions," is either a complete non-sequitur, or a concise demonstration of her energy illiteracy. One leans toward the latter explanation after watching her ask if the box could use solar as a power source, and Sridhar's humoring affirmation.

The pressure is clearly on the MSM to make some noise for Holy Grails.

There is also something telling about the appetite for hope in the way the blogosphere lapped up the excitement around the unveiling. The appeal to authority of the brass on stage clearly worked, producing uncritical comments like "Gee whiz, $400 million in capital, it clearly works, it's cheap, and fits in my backyard? I'm in!"

The fact is that the energy problem is too big to grail. Or, as the peakists say, "There are no silver bullets, only silver BBs."

BBs as in Bloom Box.

I want to be clear. I spent nearly two decades in the computer industry before I got seriously into energy. I used my first computer (a very early, educational prototype) at the age of five, in 1969. I saw the computer revolution firsthand, and I know the power of technological development.

But I also know that the ingrained optimism of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs — as much as I love them — simply does not translate to the challenge of generating or saving hard BTUs. No single technology will save us. Moore's Law does not apply here. The history of energy is littered with the bodies of enterprising souls just like them.

One thing I will say: Only a venture capital firm with the power of Kleiner, Perkins could coordinate such a media blitz and star-studded unveiling, and wow the socks off the media. My hat is off; they scored a major coup with this one.

I remain staunchly rooted in numbers and of the mind that it's better to have no hope than false hope, because it pushes us toward real solutions.

The Doomsday clock is ticking. It's time to put aside childish things, retire the phrase "Holy Grail" permanently, and get real about energy.

Until next time,

Chris

P.S. While the Bloom Box is no doubt a step in the right direction in the ongoing search for energy's Holy Grail, we still need to consider other sources of energy to deal with the scope of the oncoming energy crisis — and all signs point to nuclear as a viable option. Green Chip has uncovered a little-known metals company with a monopoly on the new "monter metal" that will change the nuclear game. This brand-new report reveals this $0.16 company about to launch to the top of the industry.

Editor's Note: Kudos to Lux Research, The Oil Drum, Wired and WattHead for their informed commentary on the Bloom Box.

What Soccer Can Teach Us about Energy Policy

If you've ever seen little kids play soccer, you know how comical it is to watch. The whole teams (except the goalies, who are usually bored and distracted by interesting bugs at their feet), chase the ball around en masse as the ball is more herded than played. Goals are the outcome of a chaotic knot of players kicking as rapidly as possible, not the skillful execution of premeditated strategy.

As players mature, they learn to play their positions and go where the ball will be, not where it is. They pass it around, executing well-rehearsed plays and setting up their shooters for scoring opportunities. Rarely do you see more than two or three people actually chasing the ball.

In short, they learn that teamwork is more important that personal performance if you want to score goals.

And so it is with energy policy.

The Pee Wee League

To be precise, we don't have one. There is no playbook. We are simply hurtling at high speed toward the net energy cliff.

When Team Right has the ball, it furiously kicks it toward the fossil fuel and nuclear goal. Restrictive regulations are dismantled. New drilling leases are awarded. Piles of federal cash are shoveled to their preferred recipients. Investment in renewables and environmental protection is slashed. Wars for oil are started.

Then Team Left gets control, furiously herding the ball toward the green goal line. Incentives are awarded for wind and solar. Piles of federal cash are shoveled toward the renewable manufacturers. Taxes on fossil fuel producers are raised and their incentives are slashed.

The overnight comeback of North American oil

This $4-a-share driller is the front-runner in a forgotten oil field that’s all of a sudden the hottest energy territory in the Western Hemisphere.

Their new drilling technology is the key -- here’s the proof that two-year gains of 1,239% or more await those who move fast...

Most of the American public lounges listlessly in the goal nets, distracted by scandals and the technological salvation du jour — the hydrogen economy, undiscovered oil bonanzas right beneath our feet, space based solar power, biofuels from algae and other overhyped phenomena.

And so it goes. Energy policy lurches around aimlessly in the middle of the field. Little progress is made.

On the rare occasion that the ball does make it toward a goal, a violent and senseless group thrashing ensues at the goal line. The ball ends up out of bounds more than it does in the net.

Incentives come and go, creating boom-and-bust cycles that prove devastating to progress and innovation for both the Brown and Green energy sectors. Wild price swings result. Nobody understands what's causing it.

Fouls are called that might have been overlooked had the play been orderly. Oil speculators are scapegoated. Climate scientists are vilified.

The commentators on the sidelines excitedly report every kick, block, shove, and stumble. They don't realize they're watching a pee wee league game, so they take it very seriously. The lack of coherent strategy never even crosses their minds.

We learn nothing from the game, and do nothing differently afterward. Trading rules may be slightly modified, and climate legislation may be rendered toothless or simply stall out, but nothing really changes.

We simply bunch up again, resuming our aimless herding.

Tribal Behavior

It's fair to say that hardly anyone in America is energy literate. They couldn't tell you what a kilowatt-hour is, where the power in their sockets comes from, how much oil the country consumes, or where it came from.

Energy simply isn't taught until the college years, and even then only to engineers who specialize in it. Few bother to learn anything about it on their own time in their adult years. This is as true for elected officials as it is for the rank-and-file.

Only a tiny cohort have begun to seriously contemplate the challenges of energy transition.

Since we don't really know the game, we fall back on our prewired "tribal" behaviors.

Team Right tunes in to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and learns its talking points: Drill here, drill now, pay less! Nuclear power could save us in 20 years if we'd only build some reactors! Environmentalists and liberals who want to destroy America are responsible for our energy problems!

Team Left tunes into Al Gore and MSNBC and bones up on its talking points: The oil companies are evil and we should stop drilling now! Renewables could end global warming in 20 years if we'd only build them now! The fossil fuel industry and its Texan cronies are responsible for our energy problems!

Then they come together at social gatherings and Town Hell meetings. They bunch in their respective corners, lobbing their talking points like grenades. They thrash about frenetically. Then somebody says something out of bounds and the play pauses.

Nothing is learned by either team because they have nothing to teach. You can't have a rational exchange of information and find agreement on complex issues when you don't actually understand what you're talking about.

But you can always represent your tribe.

You don't need to know the complex reality of nuclear power or understand that its future has a dozen or so hard, real-world limits. You don't need to know that renewables are still less than 2% of the world primary energy supply and can only grow so quickly even if you tilt everything in its favor, particularly if you're trying to build them after oil has peaked.

You don't need to have the first clue about the insane complexity of climate science, or the validity of its models.

No independent thought or literacy is required of you. If somebody from your team claims we can innovate our way to zero carbon in 40 years because Moore's Law says so, or that peak oil is bunk and the Invisible Hand will save us because economic theory says so, then that should be good enough for you.

It doesn't matter if he's been wrong about oil for the last five years straight, or if he has no particular expertise in the solutions he champions. If he's on teevee all the time and he's got a book, or he's worth a couple billion dollars, he must be an authority, right?

Simply give the ball a good kick for your side, and your job is done.

A Playbook for Team America

It's time for us to grow up and learn to play this game for real.

We need to gather in the locker room to watch some films of older, more mature players and try to copy their moves.

We'd take note of China's long-term rail construction plan, instead of arguing that an abortion like Amtrak doesn't pay for itself right this minute.

We'd plan to manage our resources for the long term health of our society, like Norway and Saudi Arabia do.

We might form an Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security like the UK has, to advise and prepare industry and policymakers for the decline of oil, instead of writing sunny official reports that completely fail to recognize reality.

We'd copy the proven successes of long-lived, stable feed-in tariffs in Germany and Japan instead of inventing complex, corruptible mechanisms like cap and trade.

We'd formulate and then execute 20- and 30-year plans to reduce our need for fossil fuels, instead of watching incentives come and go with every turnover of a Congressional seat.

Our playbook would begin with some rough milestones:

Oil has peaked. Supply will be flattish for the next 2-4 years, then begin a long decline.
We will lose 25% of our oil supply in 25 years; 50% in 50 years; 100% in 100 years.
To compensate for the decline of oil with renewables, the world would need to build the equivalent of all the world's existing renewable energy capacity, every year.
Since that is impossible, efficiency and energy transition must make up the shortfall.
We will also see the peaks of natural gas and coal in the next 20 years. Hydropower and nuclear will do little more than hold their current market share.
The days of economic growth may be gone forever for import-dependent developed countries like the United States.
The least painful path is to downsize, economize, and relocalize.
By the end of the century, nearly everything will have to be powered by renewably-generated electricity, not liquids or gases.

Then we might draw up some plays, and practice them.

We'd invent a defensive strategy for our grid. We'd build in micro-islanding and distributed storage capacity so that single points of failure don't cascade into widespread blackouts. We'd harden it against cyber-attacks.

We'd recognize the extreme vulnerability of importing nearly three-quarters of our daily oil supply, at a cost of around $500 billion a year. We'd understand that the knife edge is peak exports, not peak oil, and plan out a defense in case the exports from our top sources go to zero.

We'd stage practice drills for fuel shortages, to hone our local resiliency reflexes. We'd build redundancy for energy, water, food, and security.

Most importantly, we'd learn teamwork and good sportsmanship. The Greens, the Browns, the Department of Energy, Congress and all the states would work together to score a win for Team America.

Or we can stay in the pee wee league while the smart teams go on to play for the resource championship of the world.

In the end, we will deserve the energy future we get.

Until next time,

Chris

Image credit: Marina Youth Soccer League, Marina, CA

Investor's Note: While there are several bridges that we'll need to develop in order to transition from our oil-driven society, there's only one clear-cut winner: Natural gas.

In fact, natural gas is going to play a critical role in meeting our future energy needs; it's a clean, domestic resource... and we have a lot of it.

For investors, the game gets even better! Thanks to modern advances in drilling and fracturing techniques, companies can now tap into the vast shale gas fields. One of those formations in particular is out-pacing them all. In this free bonus report, you can learn everything you need to know about this massive shale play — including four companies raking in the profits for members of the $20 Trillion Report. Simply click here to learn more about this opportunity.

George Soros expects to make 1,925% gains with this little-known energy play

Here's a smart investment for you...

Imagine you stumbled upon a company that is developing an engine which can run on a fuel that costs a mere $.55/ gallon to produce.

It's not science fiction — even billionaire George Soros is investing millions in this clean-burning "champagne of fuel."

Click here to learn more about the fuel that can bring you almost 20 times your money...

The Rooftop Solar Market

Distributed generation of renewable energy is off to a rocky start, but it's finally making some headway.

The research side is looking good. The $28 billion request in the president's FY 2011 budget for the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy includes large increases for programs including wind, weatherization, smart grid technologies, and solar — plus $58 million for National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) infrastructure and $50 million to stimulate clean energy education.

An additional $300 million would support the Advanced Research Project Agency — Energy (ARPA-E) initiative. Modeled after the DARPA program that resulted in the Internet, ARPA-E will fund the fundamental research to incubate the energy grid of the future, what Ethernet inventor Bob Metcalfe termed the Enernet.

Thanks to a little-known California law, this wind energy stock is about to become

One of the most sought after wind plays on the planet.

Get in now, and ride it for a quick 112% gain.

Click here

Grid investment is coming along well, with $75 million allocated to it in the budget request, plus $40 million toward grid storage solutions. It's a relatively paltry amount, but it should be bolstered soon by major grid reform legislation making its way through Congress.

The production side has become a bit of a buyer's market, yet manufacturers are still building new capacity in anticipation of the boom ahead. Yes, China is building more capacity in the U.S. than American companies are, but as I have argued previously, that's fortunate given the urgency of our situation. Solar PV supply is high and prices are as low as they've ever been, which is constructive for new installations.

Overall, I would say we're making progress on the hardware front. But then it's easy to throw money at hardware.

The real problems now are in finance and policy. The big up-front cost has always been the main hurdle to distributed generation (and rooftop solar in particular), but now several ways to overcome it are available.

10 Million Solar Roofs

At the federal level, we have the "10 Million Solar Roofs and 10 Million Gallons of Solar Water Heating Act of 2010" bill introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, which was modeled after the California Solar Initiative (Ahnold's "Million Solar Roofs" program).

A direct rebate of $1.75/watt for PV systems and $1/watt for solar hot water would offset somewhere around a quarter of the project cost. Combined with existing 30% federal investment tax credit (ITC) and state incentives where available, it could bring the end-user's cost down to 25% of the actual retail price. The $2-3 billion price tag of the bill will be hard to swallow... but if it passes, it would be a major shot in the arm for rooftop solar.

The more interesting solutions, however, are at the local level.

PACE

Under a fairly new type of program called property assessed clean energy (PACE), local governments float bond issues secured by real property in their districts and use the proceeds to fund renewable energy and efficiency projects. The property owners then pay back the debt as special assessment included in their property tax bill over 20 years.

As an example, $12,000 in financing through the program would translate to roughly $75 a month in payments. If the property is sold, the energy systems and the tax obligation remain with it.

PACE is offered by Oakland-based Renewable Funding and has been implemented in three counties and three cities in California, including San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Sonoma.

A statewide program expected to commence this year. San Francisco's program was approved this week and will offer $150 million in bonding capacity. Fifteen states have adopted PACE programs over the last year and a half, and interest continues to grow without discernable opposition.

Contributing to the popularity of PACE is that it's a voluntary program that only affects property owners who choose to participate, and that it applies to a wide range of measures in addition to rooftop solar.

Third-Party Financing

A different approach uses private third-party financing to front the cost of a solar PV system to end-users, who then pay it off over 15-20 years or more.

In the commercial sector, companies like Solar Power Partners (SPP) and SunRun of California assume the initial installation cost and own and operate the systems in exchange for a power purchase agreement (PPA) with the customer.

Power generated by the system is sold back to the customer, typically at or below grid rates. At the end of the PPA term, the customer can buy the system at fair market value or renew their PPA.

SPP's targets include water districts, wineries, universities, airports, and other large facilities. Their current portfolio stands at about 14 MW, which is tiny compared to a single 500-1,000 MW coal-fired plant... But I see potential for robust growth in such financing options.

Cutting the out-of-pocket expense to zero makes solar PV a no-brainer for any facility that wants to produce some of its own power and lock in fixed power prices. (If they know anything about the future of energy, they should).

The private capital behind the strategy gets a 5% annual rate of return (or better) at nearly zero risk by assuming the 30% ITC and taking ownership of a producing, hard asset.

When lines of credit shrunk or dried up altogether in the Great Credit Drought of 2008-2009, solar installation companies turned to private capital as well. Companies like Geoscape Solar of New Jersey and SolarCity of California offer financing options with zero upfront cost under PPAs and lease arrangements to the residential and small commercial market.

Biotech brings cure to cancer — and 10,000% gains to investors

Americans currently have a 41% chance of developing cancer during their lifetimes. But while this number may seem dire, there is hope on the horizon...

In-house biotech expert Steve Christ has stumbled upon a small firm having amazing success developing a cancer vaccine — and he expects this biotech outfit to make over 1000 times your money as the drug is pushed on to the world market.

You can read all about this miracle vaccine right here.

FITs

Feed-in tariffs, or FITs, have proved the world's most effective incentive for rooftop solar and distributed power, typically offering customers three to four times the grid price for kilowatt-hours they generate. FITs are financed by incorporating their cost into grid power prices across the board, resulting in a very modest price increase for all customers.

The FIT in Japan was so successful that it is already being phased out.

The German FIT captured half the world market for solar modules in roughly five years, reached its target early, and is now accelerating its schedule for declining tariffs. Studies have already shown that the program has actually reduced the fully-considered costs of delivering power to the country, and Green Chip International readers have tapped companies from both inside and outside of Germany that generate earnings as German rate-payers benefit.

Spain's FIT was fully subscribed in short order, then fell victim to a federal budget shortfall as Spain descended to become the S in PIIGS — the nations at risk of sovereign default that have been rattling world markets recently.

A new FIT for the UK has just been announced which will pay 41 pence initially — as compared with a standard grid price in the 10-12 pence range — for production from residential-sized generators including PV, wind, micro-hydro, and biomass. The tariff depends on the technology and is inflation-indexed.

In the U.S., the failure of the federal government to offer a FIT has prompted states and a few cities to try creating their own equivalents. Unfortunately, it's a regulatory path fraught with peril because the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) of 1978 forbids states from setting tariffs above the "avoided cost" of generation from other sources, like conventional natural gas-fired plants.

As the excellent summary by Paul Gipe explains, a new report (actually a long legal opinion) from NREL lays out two legal paths states can take.

One is to lard the tariff over and above the avoided cost with revenue from renewable energy credits (RECs), subsidies, and tax credits, which fall outside the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) jurisdiction.

Alternatively, in the handful of states where ownership of distribution and generation are split, utilities may offer higher tariffs for solar PV voluntarily... but the opportunities under this strategy are few.

The other practical path is for FERC to exempt generators under 20 MW from PURPA. The California Energy Commission has asked the state to seek a clarification from FERC on this point, and it seems likely that other state regulators will join that effort.

Since PURPA was written over three decades ago before the age of renewables began, this seems a reasonable fix to the problem. Rep. Jay Inslee of Washington has proposed the necessary changes to the law, but unfortunately they are tied up in the Waxman-Markey climate change bill, which is going nowhere fast.

The pieces are now — or will soon be — in place to enable an explosion of distributed renewable energy in the U.S. It has the technology, the financial mechanisms, the public sentiment, and the right cost of entry: zero. It will not be stymied by musty regulations, utility opposition, or even the recalcitrance of banks.

Solar manufacturers, smart grid players, progressive but risk-averse capital, and most of all the public stand to benefit handsomely.

Until next time,

Chris

The Oil Export Crisis Has Arrived

Last March, my study of the effect of peak oil on U.S. imports had brought Mexico to the forefront. As our #3 source of imports, the crashing of its supergiant Cantarell field had put the future of our oil supply in serious jeopardy.

The possibility that Mexico's oil and gas exports to the U.S. could go to zero within seven years looked very real.

As I explained in that piece, rising domestic consumption coupled with declining supply puts an ever-tightening squeeze on imports. I have found no evidence that policymakers are paying any attention to this critically important dynamic, but it is the very point of the peak oil spear.

Were it not for the market meltdown and recession, it would have pierced our vital organs. Instead we felt a pinprick. Hardly anybody realized what it really was, and most ran off on a wild goose chase for evil oil speculators.

Now Venezuela has appeared on my radar for similar reasons... only this time, we're really going to feel it.

Let's begin with a review of Mexico's exports.

How You Could Make 508% Gains Off the End of Offshore Drilling

Deep-sea drilling is public enemy # 1 these days... President Obama is freezing any and all new projects from entering the water...

Is this the end of offshore drilling?

Three small American companies are taking advantage of the huge gamechange in the oil industry and drilling in the most oil-rich inland reserve in the country today.

Find out how you can get on board with the profits to be made in domestic drilling, and take huge advantage of this new ocean-less era.

Mexico

Shortly after publishing that article, I casually remarked to my friend and fellow energy analyst Gregor Macdonald that Cantarell's production could fall to under 0.5 million barrels per day (mbpd) by the end of the year.

I arrived at this somewhat startling conclusion by calculating the effect of its decline rate — 38% at the time and accelerating — on production of 0.77 mbpd in January, down precipitously from its 2.1 mbpd peak in 2003.

Gregor's recent data sleuthing on Cantarell found its production in December 2009 was 0.527688 mbpd, just a hair above my estimate.

To update the data on Mexico, it's now our #2 source of imported petroleum because Saudi Arabia has fallen from #2 to #4.

As of November 2009 (the latest data available) the U.S. imported 1.08 mbpd of crude and finished petroleum products from Mexico. Its exports to the U.S. peaked at 1.46 mbpd in 2004, the same year as its production peaked. Net exports (production minus consumption) fell to 1.06 mbpd in 2008.

Mexico Petroleum Supply, Exports to U.S. and Net Exports. Source: EIA. Chart by Chris Nelder.

For the years 2005-2008, Mexico's exports to the U.S. declined by 0.51 barrels per day. In 2010, supply is expected to fall to 2.5 mbpd — nearly half a million barrels per day less than 2009.

Mexico nationalized its petroleum operations in 1938 in a constitutional amendment and handed over total control to the state oil company Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX), with predictable results.

Oil now provides more than 40% of the country's revenues, which have been used to pay for a vast array of public services and line the pockets of the oligarchy while starving investment in both upstream activities (new oil supply) and downstream (finished products).

Consequently, Mexico's oil reserves have decreased by more than 75% in two decades (owing partly to the correction of a previous, ridiculously inflated figure), production has begun to decline and exports are falling fast.

It now imports $4.5 billion a year worth of gasoline, $10 billion a year in petrochemicals, and 25% of its natural gas, mostly from the U.S. This despite having nearly 13 billion barrels of proven oil reserves and more than 50 billion barrels of (unproven) reserve potential.

Mexico would be in a far better position, were it not for its hostile stance on foreign participation. PEMEX simply lacks the technical ability to develop its more difficult, remaining resources — particularly deep water.

Venezuela

As of November, the U.S. was importing 0.9 mbpd from Venezuela, making it our #3 source. Its exports to the U.S. peaked at 1.8 mbpd in 1997, the same year as its production peaked. Net exports (production minus consumption) have fallen 38% from the 1997 peak of 3.1 mbpd to 1.9 mbpd in 2008.

Venezuela's oil exports to the U.S. have been declining markedly since 2004, after a long period of relative stability. From 2004 through 2009, Venezuelan petroleum exports fell 0.7 mbpd.

Venezuela Petroleum Supply, Exports to U.S. and Net Exports. Source: EIA. Chart by Chris Nelder.

Like Mexico, Venezuela is endowed with enormous energy resources and could be producing at a far higher level. Estimates of its oil reserves range from 153 billion barrels of certified proven; to 513 billion barrels technically recoverable in the USGS' January estimate; to 1.5 trillion barrels in offshore potential, if you believe the effervescent Dr. Marcio Mello of Brazil.

Most of it is heavy oil, a low-grade which must be upgraded to synthetic crude.

And like Mexico, President Hugo Chavez has exiled the Western oil companies who might have made the investment to bring those resources to market.

Jr. Mining Outfit Unlocks $550 Billion Deposit

... And surges 207%!

Trading for $1.42, this tiny junior recently unlocked a metals deposit in Minnesota that's worth more than half a trillion dollars!

As official mining operations begin, investors loading up right now could easily triple their money over the coming months...

Click here to find out why.

A Nation in Free Fall

The good times rolled for Chavez in the first years after his election in 1998. His socialist programs to rebuild the country and raise its standard of living were popular but expensive, and soon began to fail under the crush of declining energy supply.

Oil revenues make up 90% of Venezuela's foreign earnings, so its dependence on oil exports is extreme.

Billions of dollars in profits from the national oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA) were diverted to welfare programs and into the pockets of oligarchs, while investment in future petroleum and power supply languished.

The precipitous drop in oil prices since mid-2008 only compounded the revenue shortfall.

Oil production has fallen 25% since Chavez was elected, and a long, devastating drought has cut into its hydropower supply, of which 73% comes from the massive Guri Dam.

Chavez responded by nationalizing most of its petroleum operations and its grid in 2007.

In 2009, another 76 oil services companies on the Maracaibo Lake were taken over. The projects now sit abandoned, waiting for PDVSA to compensate the displaced operators and put them back into operation.

Almost half a million hectares of land were seized in 2009 with the rationalization that it was underused.

Measures to counter the declining hydro supply have been implemented in a haphazard fashion, resulting in frequent, unscheduled blackouts, including seven national blackouts since 2007. Malls and government offices have had their hours of operation cut and water rationing has been imposed.

"Some people sing in the bath for half an hour,'' Chávez cried at a cabinet session in October. "What kind of communism is that? Three minutes is more than enough!''

In January, a wave of public protest erupted, prompting Chavez to implement a rapid series of desperate measures.

Rolling blackouts were imposed in the capital city of Caracas. After a few days of protests, Chavez lifted the blackouts and fired the electricity minister. Blackouts are expected to be reinstated in an effort to keep hydro reservoir levels from falling to the point of collapse.
A recent report gave the power shortage a paradoxical twist, indicating that power from one of the state refineries may have to be diverted to the grid, cutting distillate output by 200,000 barrels per day — or more. This will result in less heating oil for China, who will make up the loss by burning more coal.
Chavez devalued Venezuela's bolivar currency by half; the president went on to nationalize a chain of French-owned supermarkets over alleged price gouging.
He ordered cutbacks in the operation of state-run steel and aluminum manufacturing operations, which account for up to 20% of the country's power demand.
This week he turned to Cuba for help on how to cope with the power shortage, since Cuba has been through similar problems. The island nation is providing tens of thousands of energy-efficient lightbulbs and cloud-seeding technology to Venezuela.
Last weekend, he forced six television channels off the air for failing to broadcast one of his speeches — up to six hours in length — in a continuation of his campaign for "communicational hegemony." Since December, all radio and television networks are required by law to broadcast his speeches live, whenever he chooses to make one.
Nationwide student marches have been met by troops armed with rubber bullets, and at least two deaths have been recorded.

Chavez has said he's prepared to take "radical measures" should the situation worsen, begging the unsettling question of what could be more radical than what he has already done.

Looking East, Not North

Now Chavez is turning east for help in developing his nation's oil and gas resources. Recent agreements include a $20 billion joint venture with Russia to develop the Junin 6 field in the Orinoco oil belt, with a potential top production rate of 450,000 barrels per day.

China has agreed to build a refinery and develop the Orinoco heavy oil fields, and Venezuela has guaranteed 560,000 barrels per day to China this year.

Venezuela has launched its first major auction for drilling rights in more than a decade, for access to areas east of the existing operations in the Orinoco. Developing the leases will be expensive because of their distance from the existing infrastructure, and winning bidders are expected to make offers in the $10 billion-plus range including early payments of at least $1 billion, financing plans, and commitments to build the necessary roads, pipelines, ports, and upgraders. Potential bidders include Spain's Repsol, Japan's Mitsubishi, the UK's BP, and Chevron.

Given the sheer size of its resources, it's too soon to declare the end of Venezuela's glory days in the oil patch. However, it does seem likely that the new barrels it brings to market will be headed east — not north — and Western producers will have very little stake in the projects.

Chavez will put exports to the U.S. on a short path to zero the first chance he gets.

Oh Imports, Where Art Thou?

The combined decline in imports from Mexico and Venezuela for 2005 through 2008 is 0.89 mbpd. If the trend continues in 2009, then over 1 mbpd will have disappeared from the U.S. import stream in the last five years — a decline of 8% from 2004 levels.

Since 2007, the loss of production from Cantarell alone was 0.7 mbpd, but the recession cut U.S. demand by 2 mbpd, effectively masking the decline. This raises the question: If U.S. demand rises from here, where will those barrels come from... and how much will they cost?

The U.S. is not only in first place worldwide in its demand for oil, but in paying the market rate for it. Nobody else buys 8.5 mbpd of crude at retail.

Drivers in Venezuela are still filling up for 25 cents a gallon, even as their exports decline.

Mexico's gasoline prices are more on par with the U.S., but its consumption has been rising steadily since 1997 and continues to cut into exports.

Saudi Arabia's domestic consumption is currently growing at the rate of 7% per year, following a trend of more than three decades. It uses a whopping 1.5 mbpd — 1.8% of total world oil supply! — to desalinate water, at the equivalent of 7 cents a gallon.

Before the OPEC cuts of 2009, its exports to the U.S. had essentially flatlined at 1.5 mbpd since 2004.

Exports from our #5 source, Nigeria, have also declined — from 1.17 mbpd in 2005 to 0.98 mbpd in 2008.

In fact, of the top five oil exporting countries to the U.S., representing 63% of our crude imports, only Canada posted an increase (of 0.2 mbpd).

The combined annual net oil exports from our top three exporting countries — Canada, Mexico and Venezuela — illustrate our situation:

Combined Annual Net Oil Exports From Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. Source: Jeffrey J. Brown, Samuel Foucher, PhD, Jorge Silveus.

Given the very modest increases from unconventional domestic production and Canada, the decline of imports from Mexico and Venezuela means the U.S. will be increasingly forced to depend on suppliers farther afield — the very same suppliers that China has been buying into in size. The "collision course with China" that I wrote about in July 2005 has nearly reached the point of impact.

It also means that when oil prices rise again, the pain will be far greater for the U.S. than it is for our top suppliers. Next time, the spear of declining oil exports will puncture a lung.

The oil export crisis has arrived... We just haven't felt it yet.

Production, consumption, and export data herein is the latest available from the EIA.

Until next time,

Chris

Thanks to the following individuals for their contributions to this article: Venezuelan oil expert Carlos Rossi for sharing excerpts from his forthcoming book, The Completion of the Oil Era: The Economic Impact; Gregor Macdonald for sharing his data on Cantarell; and Jeffrey Brown and Samuel Foucher, for their work on net exports data and the Export Land Model.

Investor's Note: While declining oil imports from Mexico and Venezuela paint a nightmare scenario for meeting future U.S. demand, all hope isn't lost... In fact, one U.S. oil play is developing at a breakneck pace. You're likely aware of the Bakken oil formation. But you may not realize fully how the Bakken has single-handedly thrust North Dakota into the international investment spotlight.

Of course, members of the $20 Trillion Report know how profitable the Bakken oil formation is. So far, they've raked in gains of 305%, 249% and 130%! We want you to share in their success. In this free report, you'll find out why underestimating the Bakken formation could make you a small fortune. Simply click here to learn more about this investment opportunity.

The Options Guide Your Broker Doesn't Want You to See...

Most people think profiting from options requires years of investment experience or a seasoned stock broker.

That's why people are losing thousands of dollars everyday.

Our in-house options expert Ian Cooper has put together a FREE guide detailing an options strategy that's so easy, he's calling them "automatic options."

Click here now to gain access to your FREE options trading guide.

Green Energy: The Belle of the Ball in 2010

Every once in a while, the tone of the energy market shifts in a way that seems subtle at the time, but is a major turning point in hindsight. I believe one is happening now.

January 2007 was such a moment, a time of palpable excitement around renewable energy. Solar, wind, and other renewable plays exploded that year, and First Solar (NASDAQ: FSLR) gained 866%.

July 2007 offered another, when the IEA had its "come-to-Jesus moment." The depletion of mature oil fields was finally out of the bag and in plain view, and it worked a sea-change on the debate about the future of oil. Fairy tales of endless growth gave way to a more earnest discussion about whether unconventional oil could replace conventional oil, which had flatlined since the end of 2004.

I marked Memorial Day 2008 as the moment when peak oil emerged from obscurity in the media, and the debate shifted from denial to serious inquiry. My intensive study of the subject, Profit from the Peak, had just been published and numerous media appearances followed where I explained what peak oil was about.

Now, anyone who is paying attention knows what it means (or at least think they know what it means), and the topic is casually included in financial and news discussions.

I've Uncovered A Photograph that Could Hand You $36,950 by this Time Next Year...

I don't blame you if this sounds far-fetched...

In fact, if I hadn't met the man who traveled 1,400 miles to track me down — just to hand me a photo — I wouldn't have believed it, either.

But once you take a peek at the snapshot, as well as the three reasons it could make you rich, I have no doubt you'll change your mind.

But those were mere eddies compared to the wave I can feel building now. It's as if all the political momentum — indeed the entire public dialogue about energy — has suddenly changed from Brown to Green.

In the wake of the failed Copenhagen talks, and with the potentially imminent death of cap-and-trade legislation, the world seems to have realized what I've been saying all along: It's better to incentivize than penalize. Focus on generating renewable energy first, and then worry about the emissions that remain.

Automobiles

Peak oil awareness has clearly motivated the auto industry to shift aggressively into electric propulsion. Toyota U.S.A. President and COO Jim Lentz said in November, "Our model on future energy is that we will probably see peak oil some time around the end of the next decade, so whether it's 2017 or 2020, it's gonna be some time in that neighborhood."

GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz was even blunter in his keynote at the LA Auto Show in December: "Going forward, the automobile industry simply can no longer rely on oil to supply 98 percent of the world's automotive energy requirements."

Their response has been dramatic. Toyota's Prius and GM's Volt are their new flagship products. BMW, to my great relief, has abandoned its hydrogen car program and is going full-throttle into electric cars. Nissan and Mitsubishi are tooled for mass production of their electrics. Better Place, the recharging infrastructure and battery swapping play, has raised $700 million and it's not even in operation yet.

Rail

Rail is moving back onto the U.S. national agenda, with $8 billion in new grants for high speed rail announced this week as part of its $13 billion share of the federal stimulus package. Florida is expected to capture $2.5 billion of that for a high speed link from Orlando to Tampa. A $171 million Department of Transportation loan announced this week will green-light the rebuilding of San Francisco's Transbay Terminal as a high-speed rail depot while the project's $400 million federal stimulus application is reviewed.

To be sure, $8 billion is a paltry beginning-perhaps 2% of the federal commitment that will be needed to really rail-ify America. The San Francisco-Los Angeles high speed line alone will cost on the order of $40 billion. The full cost of installing high speed rail and intra-city light rail across America will be somewhere in the low trillions, it will probably take us decades, and most of the interstate links will have to be federally funded.

The stimulus money for high speed rail isn't part of some comprehensive national transportation strategy to counter the peak oil threat, because no such strategy exists. But it could be the best investment in the hastily conceived, shovel-ready jobs stimulus package, because it will give us in a critically important long-term asset.

For perspective on that $13 billion, consider that Beijing is already executing its plan to build a $556 billion high speed rail system linking nearly all its provincial cities in the next five years. The Shanghai-Beijing link alone is expected to create half a million jobs. And unlike the $779 billion in the U.S. stimulus package that will not go to rail projects, Beijing's investment will result in a permanent and absolutely vital asset.

Were the U.S. doing anything of the kind, I might never worry my weary head again about peak oil.

Wind and Grid

A study released this week by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) showed that as much as 30% of the eastern seaboard and the Midwest could be powered by wind, and 20% could be done by 2024 — if the transmission lines existed.

NREL estimates the grid will need 20,000 new miles of backbone at a cost of around $90 billion. Building it would create around 280,000 new jobs and give us a critical long-term asset. It's a perfect example of appropriate federal investment in national infrastructure, yet it faces NIMBY opposition everywhere. A heavier hand may be required to push it through. It's good to see transmission reform legislation making its way through Congress now, but I pray it doesn't blow up into a states' rights hubbub.

Compare that to the $42 billion HVDC "super grid" that nine European countries plan to build around the North Sea that will enable all of them to use renewable power, whether it's being generated by offshore wind in Denmark, wave power in Scotland, solar power in North Africa, or hydropower in Norway. It will form the heart of a much larger, $400 billion pan-European super grid; a critical link in achieving the EU's 20% by 2020 target.

Or compare again to China, with its $217 billion investment in electric grid infrastructure from 2006 to 2010 alone.

The good news is that while building the electric infrastructure of the future isn't cheap, it isn't expensive either. The NREL study concluded that the avoided future cost of coal-fired power would more than offset the cost of the new grid infrastructure. We must assume that's before even factoring in any externalized costs, or any peak-oil adjusted estimates of the future costs.

However we'll have to move faster. NREL's 20% scenario is based on 225,000 megawatts (MW) of new wind capacity, or 16,000 MW a year through 2024. The U.S. installed only 10,000 MW of new capacity in 2009 according to the AWEA, so we'd have to post a 60% growth rate from current levels to deploy that much.

Meanwhile, ten times that — more than 100,000 MW of offshore wind capacity alone — is currently under development in Europe.

Solar

Solar power is making progress on several different fronts.

The snowball of Chinese solar manufacturers opening plants in the U.S. rolls on, with the announcement that Suntech (NYSE: STP) is building a new plant in Arizona.

Distributed local generation is making great strides. In California, the Southern California Edison utility has launched a competitive bidding process for 225 MW of rooftop solar capacity, with a project size of 1-2 MW. Another 250 MW will be purchased from independent solar developers. Utility PG&E is expected to launch a similar 500 MW offering soon. Even better, a proposed feed-in tariff for 1 to 10 MW-sized renewable projects is in the works. The progress for bellwether California in distributed generation bodes well for the rest of the country, suggesting that transmission grid support for utility-scale solar may become less of a hurdle for the industry as a whole.

Incentive programs elsewhere in the country continue to enjoy enthusiastic receptions where the price is right. A new $4 million incentive offering for residential and small commercial solar in Massachusetts was fully subscribed in the first four hours this week, reflecting a strong build-up of demand. Generous rooftop solar incentives in states like New Jersey and New York are being exhausted and replenished yearly.

Materials research in photovoltaics (PV) continues to show promise as well, in areas like cell backing materials, adhesion methods, new cell formulations and production methods, and longevity testing and hardening. PV looks well on its way to cutting costs on a Moore's Law curve.

Building efficiency is also enjoying an explosion of subsidies and new plays. Watch this space for developments in that sector.

Brown Going Down

Meanwhile, things aren't going too well for the fossil fuel sector, which is under attack on every side.

Oil remains precariously balanced on the narrow ledge of prices, as does natural gas to a lesser extent. The supply of both remains sufficient to keep the specter of shortage marginal pricing at bay. Inventories are reasonably high, and prices aren't high enough to induce new drilling for high-risk or high-cost prospects. Even so, the worsening outlook for the refining sector continues to support the price of gasoline and other finished products.

Costs remain a bit too high for the comfort of marginal producers, as evidenced by an interview with Royal Dutch Shell CEO Peter Voser in London's Financial Times this week. The company was no longer counting on growth from tar sands production, he said, and its plan to expand operations in Albert by roughly half a million barrels per day remained shelved. Conventional oil and gas drilling is their new strategic direction, simply because the costs are so much lower than for tar sands development. (This, of course, is no surprise.)

The commodities markets in general seem to be showing signs of post-traumatic stress disorder, or at the very least recency bias. The trade is overwrought on fairly inconsequential signals, and there seems to be a roughly equal balance between those expecting higher and lower prices. I'm beginning to suspect that this will be a low signal-to-noise ratio year for the commodity sector, with traders slugging it out in a narrow price range and fewer solid tradeable opportunities than the last several years offered.

Concerns over public water supply contamination from hydraulic fracking shale gas operations aren't going away, and the EPA has set up a consumer complaint hotline. We simply don't have enough information yet to know whether the issue is overblown or a serious enough problem to kill the practice. However, public sentiment isn't likely to yield to science on this issue any time soon and could dampen the enthusiasm for new shale gas development.

The effort to stop mountaintop removal in coal operations isn't going away either, and emissions control is still very much in play at the EPA.

This Oil Stock is up 354% Since We Recommended It

The little-known Mongolian company we've been touting for months just struck it big...

Drilling commenced and they've hit oil — and lots of it.

Oil from an incredible source that no one had considered for years...

This is just the beginning of what could turn out to be a HUGE run. We're talking thousands of percent gains here.

Click here for all the information you need to get in on this oil outfit before its share price hits the ceiling.

The news is nearly all bad. The fossil fuel industry wakes up every day to a drumbeat of reports on oil spills, tanker traffic interruptions, environmental lawsuits, and so on, but their main sales pitch to the public is a weak one about jobs. Their message continues to fall hard on the consumer's ear, which is much more attuned now to the questions on long-term supply, security, and sustainability.

The Browns are looking more the lumbering, hidebound beast every day; meanwhile, a thousand alternatives sprout around them. They trumpet their investments in clean energy, but the fact remains that it still represents a small fraction of their investment in new BTUs overall.

I don't know what to call it: the Great Eye, the hive mind, the ideasphere... but it has turned and its attention is fixed on renewables. The Browns will find it hard to get any love this year, but the Greens will be the belle of the ball.

Until next time,

Chris

Note: If you want to see where the Greens gather to do business, you should join my colleagues and Green Chip International editors Sam Hopkins and Nick Hodge at the ReTech 2010 conference in Washington, D.C. taking place February 3-5. You can choose from 6 different informational tracks that will get you up to speed on all the changes taking the U.S. and global economy from Brown to Green. Check the conference website for more information.

Survival Strategies for Systemic Failures

This week I had my first up-close-and-personal experience with sandbags.

The five-storm series lashing the Bay Area this week is expected to dump at least 15 inches of rain on my area, and the second lash was a whopper.

Torrential rains. Biblical rains. Raining lions and wolves. Thunder like the drums of doom. Lightning splitting redwood trees. Pounding hail.

I'll spare you the details, but a ridiculous arrangement of a drainage culvert under the street and another pipe running under my wacky rental house failed. I woke up to a torrent of water sweeping against the house, causing the wall in my office to buckle and water to seep into the carpet.

The landlords were MIA. I had to take action.

Fortunately, my town has its act pretty well together. I quickly located my nearest location to pick up sandbags and the pile of sand, and 13 bags and two trips later I succeeded in diverting the water away from the house. "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" droned on in my head as I contemplated the consequences of bad urban planning and the virtues of good emergency planning.

As I write, the fourth storm has arrived, and it's a wet one. I can only hope that my temporary measures hold up. Barometric pressure readings in San Francisco and San Diego broke their record lows this week.

The "War on American Retirement" EXPOSED

While our nation's eyes are fixed on Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress launches a hidden assault right here in the homeland...

Against your IRAs and 401(k)s.

You can surrender and lose everything - or make this "guerilla wealth" move and retire rich, with your assets intact.

Click here to learn more

Now, I don't want to complain. Last January was the third-driest on record with a lousy .58 inches of rain and temps in the 80s. It was gorgeous weather, but unsettling because it felt so very wrong. My plum tree bloomed far too early and the harvest was so weak I didn't even bother breaking out the canning gear last year. Plus, Lord knows we need the water.

But when infrastructure is pushed to extremes, it can fail...and as I saw so clearly this week, there is no stopping a flood.

I took a few lessons from the experience.

Rebellion as a Survival Strategy

As I discussed in last week's article on secession and the green power rebellion, when you have to take the situation into your own hands, you do.

The first thing I did with the sandbags was block the inlet to the culvert, and divert water across the street. I figured the city might be unhappy with me, but I had to crimp the incoming flow and limit the damage somehow. (Don't get excited - I did give the fire department my address, and tell them what I intended to do first. They said to call if I needed help.)

My temporary disabling of a tiny part of the city's infrastructure, because I had to, is a minor case of a larger point. As I wrote last week, the almost-state of Jefferson nearly seceded from California and Oregon, and Marin County is trying to take control of its electrical power procurement, for the same reasons: because they felt they had to.

Two weeks ago, Gov. Schwarzenegger said that California couldn't afford to be a "donor state," getting 78 cents back from the feds for every dollar it sends in, anymore. One tactic suggested by Andrew J. Chang and Justin L. Adams, former economists for various California state governors, in an SF Gate editorial, would keep $5 billion in the state instead of paying it in federal taxes via a change in state tax deduction rules.

If a California tax rebellion is in the cards — again, out of self-preservation — it would disable some the federal financial infrastructure just as surely as my sandbags did that culvert.

Still Doing "A Heckuva Job"

Falling back on your own resources only works, however, when you have them. What can Haiti fall back on now? Very little. Their external dependency has never been so vivid, nor has the lesson on how weak emergency response can be.

More than a week after the earthquake, critical medical supplies like antibiotics still aren't getting to where they're needed. It took days for water and food to get from the Port-au-Prince airport to people less than a mile away.

It would appear that much of our emergency response remains ad-hoc, even after the lessons of Katrina and Rita. Why, after all the disasters we have lived through, are there still no standard operating procedures to mobilize volunteer medical personnel, food and water, cash contributions, earth-moving equipment, and temporary shelters?

Instead we have a reported inventory of several thousand Katrina trailers that were never used. We rely on a Twitter rumor mill to learn how to contribute cash or food, and share tips on how not to fall for scams. We have to bully airlines into waiving baggage fees so volunteer doctors on tiny church budgets can even get to the scene!

The only organized response we seem to have is the military one, which comes with a whole set of its own problems, and is sorely stretched when faced with widespread disaster.

Is this the best we can do, America? Is this what I have to fall back on, if my state's utter dependence on external connections fails?

Earthquake: A Thought Experiment

I wondered: If a major earthquake had hit California instead of Haiti, just before this deluge arrived, where would we be right now? Say, an 8.1 on the San Andreas Fault followed by an 8.0 on the Hayward Fault a few days later, putting the major population centers of Los Angeles and the Bay Area out of commission?

Where we'd be is in a world of hurt. The repercussions would last for decades.

Grocery store shelves could empty in three days or less, and stay empty for a long time. Gasoline supplies would probably be locked down immediately. Flooding and snow like we're having this week could render key arteries impassable at a critical time.

I don't know how long it would take for civil order to break down in, say, LA if the grid was down for a few weeks and emergency services were interrupted, but I do know that it took less than 48 hours after Katrina.

Backup power is virtually nonexistent. Worse, nearly all of the grid-tied solar systems would be down along with the grid, because they don't have backup and the grid lacks micro-islanding capability.

Aid shipments into California could be restricted to the ports in a heartbeat. Earthquakes like that could easily take out the handful of roads, rail lines, and power transmission lines that would add up to critical failure.

It would also be an absolute death blow to the state's balance sheet. The cost of recovery alone would do the job, let alone the lost revenue from oil and gas and food that can't get to market anymore. Would it be bailed out, or somehow absorbed by the federal structure? Could it be? Would the federal government borrow another couple-trillion dollars just to repair California?

Or would California fall back, and reorganize into local regional structures?

Is California so different from Haiti in its self-sufficiency? Could I not become a natural disaster refugee as easily — in a heartbeat?

The "War on American Retirement" EXPOSED

While our nation's eyes are fixed on Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress launches a hidden assault right here in the homeland...

Against your IRAs and 401(k)s.

You can surrender and lose everything - or make this "guerilla wealth" move and retire rich, with your assets intact.

Click here to learn more

To take the idea to a broader level, we know that there is no plan for oil shortages in America, and that our grid security is a joke. After decades of inaction and delay, there is little reason to hope that these issues will be addressed at a national level — even as their urgency grows.

Since we are now staring down the barrel of peak oil, should we not start thinking about smaller municipal fallback strategies and prepare for the day that oil shortages start to bite?

The U.S. has a strategic petroleum reserve, but where is the cash reserve for massive emergencies? Most households have one, but not cities, counties, states, or the federal government. Here in "earthquake country," residents are repeatedly reminded to keep enough food, water, batteries, and so forth stocked up to survive at least three days. Yet at the municipal level, that backup doesn't exist.

Resistance or Resilience?

It doesn't have to be this way.

There's no technical reason why cities or larger regions can't "island" from the main grid and fall back on their own power supply. Texas is currently the only state that can. There is no technical reason why every building and every city can't have its own backup power supply. Many towns have enough rooftop solar potential to refrigerate food, keep communications and furnace fans working, and supply a minimal amount of lighting. The enabling grid enhancements and demand management technology are available off the shelf, and the investment would be modest.

Every town, county, and state could have a mobilization plan for its local medical, food, and water resources. With the array of communication technologies available, there's no reason why local talent can't be organized at a moment's notice. If Wal-Mart can run a just-in-time global supply chain, surely we can get a few doctors to the scene of a disaster in 24 hours.

Entech Solar (OTC: ENSL), a tiny company that used to be known as WorldWater & Solar Technologies (former ticker: WWAT), had a beautiful little system called Mobile MaxPure, which could be driven to a site on a trailer and within 30 minutes, provide enough solar power to run water pumping and purification systems, command center equipment, and satellite phones.

After being on the market for several years, it was discontinued last year, presumably due to a lack of demand. If we were serious about emergency response, there would be thousands of them in storage, ready to be driven or delivered by helicopter on a moment's notice.

Every house with a lawn and every city with a park could be growing local food supply instead. If the 3,000-mile-long food distribution chain breaks down, there should be a subsistence-level supply of 20-mile radius food to fall back upon at the very least.

Nor is there any reason why towns and counties must rely on the banks for financing the build-out of local solar capacity. The banks have demonstrated for over a decade that they just don't get it. It's time we stopped looking to them. Local capital alone could finance enough local solar and backup supply to meet critical loads — if it were organized.

Options even exist for transportation backup. In places like Portland, OR, or Boulder, CO, a small army of bicycles with cargo trailers could be mobilized at any time to deliver food and critical supplies over the most broken of roads, if they had those strategies to accompany their bicycle-friendly urban planning.

We have the technology and the capital to do all these things. The only reason we don't is because we value the present more than the future. We resist saving for a rainy day. We choose short-term gains over long-term security every time.

Awareness of these issues does seem to be growing, however, particularly at the township level. And I think it's one of the hottest off-the-radar investing sectors.

As the complex of challenges around peak energy and climate change unfolds, I fully expect that awareness to evolve into action. Hundreds of companies will stand to benefit, in areas like water purification, power backup, smart grid technology, rooftop solar, and emergency response.

Unlike national strategies, making a household or a small town minimally self-sufficient in energy and food seems to be a small enough chunk to bite off. In our meeting last week, the mayor was actually quite interested in my vision of energy self-sufficiency for my little town.

Thousands of towns like mine could implement their own solutions before the debate on national strategies even begins.

At this late hour, I'm betting they will.

Until next time,

Chris

P.S. Believe me when I say that efficiency is the name of the game. And for investors like us, it offers a unique opportunity to pull in even more profits. You see, there's a tiny company that's on the verge of making a huge run. In this new report, you'll learn how you can utilize their ground-breaking Negawatt Box technology, potentially saving you a fortune on future energy bills. Simply click here to learn more.

China's Greed is About to Make You 2682%

It all centers on a metal most people can't pronounce... And yet, the Chinese are keeping every ounce they produce for themselves.

Find out how this wonder metal, that goes into everything from jet engines to skyscrapers... can finance your retirement.

The Renewable Power Rebellion

I speculated in my article last week on how Southern California and Arizona might fare in a relocalized future where small regions are forced to become self-sufficient.

This week, we'll draw some insights from communities that have gone local.

Jefferson, the Almost-49th State

Following two previous unsuccessful rebellions in 1852 and 1854, residents of the area from roughly Mt. Shasta in Northern California to just above Coos Bay in Oregon made a serious attempt to secede from the states in 1935, out of frustration over the lack of state support for their critical transportation infrastructure needs.

A Time magazine article from 1938 lauded the area's "rich deposits of chrome, copper, gold, iron, coal, limestone, and platinum beneath an evergreen blanket of several billion feet of virgin timber," which remained largely inaccessible for a lack of good roads and rail.

It described how a local self-made resource magnate named Gilbert Gable had tried to get approval from the Interstate Commerce Commission to build a rail link from Port Orford over the mountains to the Southern Pacific rail line 50 miles inland, in order to bring the region access to eastern markets. A rival group made its own bid for a rail connection from the SP line to Crescent City, on the California-Oregon border.

Beat Big Pharma to the Profits on A Breakthrough That's Bigger Than Penicillin

Get in on this tiny stock before news of their breakthrough "cell-shock" technology gets out -- and your chance at 1000 times your money is gone forever.

Both applications were denied by the ICC. The examiner commented, "Recent army reports show that the prospect of future growing importance of the ports of Port Orford and Crescent City definitely may be discarded as a factor of consequence in this proceeding."

Frustration grew until November 27, 1941, when the residents created a provisional government and elected a governor, declaring themselves the State of Jefferson, the 49th State of the Union. A Proclamation of Independence was published and pamphlets were distributed. Armed citizens put up road blocks on the main north-south artery of U.S. Highway 99 where they collected tolls for crossing their new state line.

The Proclamation's intent was clear: "Until California and Oregon build a road into the copper country, Jefferson, as a defense-minded State, will be forced to rebel each Thursday and act as a separate State."

One week later, amid much fanfare, the state's new governor was inaugurated in Yreka. Signs had been posted around town saying: "Our roads are not passable, hardly jackassable; if our roads you would travel, bring your own gravel." Hollywood showed up and shot some newsreels.

But three days after the inauguration, the whole thing was over with the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The nation united behind the war effort and built good new roads into Jefferson to access its much-needed copper and timber.

Some useful observations can be drawn from the Jefferson experiment.

First, it highlights the importance of getting resources to market. In an age when declining fossil fuels increasingly jeopardize truck transport, alternatives will be needed.

Locals may have to find ways to finance the rail and ship transport infrastructure for their goods — even if they have to do it on their own. Government officials are typically shortsighted about securing critically important infrastructure.

Second, it demonstrates that even in the not-too-distant past of the U.S., regions can (and will) secede if the support of larger entities fails. The notion that our union could fall apart under the pressures of the coming decades is hardly outlandish.

Indeed, I didn't have to wait long for the fulfillment of my prophecy last week that California should expect another debt downgrade. This week, S&P cut its rating on California's $63.9 billion general obligation debt from A to A-. More severe budget cuts are sure to follow, starting with health and human services. As the budget squeeze rolls downhill, it's forcing counties and cities to follow suit.

Issuing IOUs to state residents instead of tax refund checks is one thing; but when schools, law enforcement, food assistance, and basic transport begin to fail, it's another thing entirely. The impact of such cuts always hits the welfare and working classes first... people who would rally for secession if their state and nation failed them.

I have personally heard locals near the southern Mendocino County border joke about blowing up the Highway 101 Bridge in Hopland, if the worst should happen and hungry hordes from Southern California begin to migrate north. I've also heard residents of the redwoods have no great love for those of the plastic lands.

Some thought experiments may be useful here.

If our critical infrastructure were to become unreliable as state and federal unions fail, which communities would fare best? Those utterly dependent on freeway transport, like Dallas; or those with ample rail, seaborne, and pipeline capacity, like Houston? Those who can disconnect from the grid, like Texas; or all the other states, which cannot?

As Scott Pugh of the Department of Homeland Security said at the ASPO conference last year, "Texas can secede from the union any time they think they should."

And where would the boundaries of the new regions be drawn? Would I, as a resident of the Bay Area in California, prefer to end up in Mexicali, with its massively overbuilt and overpopulated deserts... or in Jefferson, with its low population, timber and minerals, farmland, ample rainfall, and a working rail and port infrastructure?

Where would offer the better opportunity to secure a food supply within a 100-mile radius: Las Vegas, or a town in rural Iowa?

Which has the most old-school, low-energy shipping infrastructure to fall back on: Baltimore or Chicago?

The Marin County Secession

Another type of secession is playing out right now, right here, which could become a model for the rest of the country.

In 2002, California passed a state law (AB 117) allowing communities to form their own entities to buy electrical power as so-called Community Choice Aggregations (CCAs). The notion is that CCAs could choose to buy more renewable energy than the existing investor owned utility (IOU) monopolies provide, while those utilities continue to own and maintain the distribution network and billing.

State revenues normally distributed to utility energy efficiency programs, plus the usual charges per kilowatt-hour, would be redirected to the CCAs, enabling them to buy green energy and alleviate the need for building new peak-capacity plants (typically powered by natural gas). Customers are automatically enrolled in the CCAs unless they opt out.

According to the New York Times, the nation's first test of the concept in Ohio has been an unmitigated success with 126 municipalities participating in 67 CCAs, providing power to about 800,000 customers with only a 5% opt-out rate. The latest supply contract signed by one of the CCAs, the Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council (NOPEC) offers rates 6% lower than the local utility. Thank you, Ohio.

In California, however, it's been a long road for those who have taken it. None have succeeded yet.

Who's Really Making a Killing from Foreclosures?

It's not the banks... It's not the auctioneers... And it certainly isn't John Q Public...

Instead, one unique company actually figured out a way to thrive from this financial crisis.

As lenders work through their mountains of foreclosures, this outfit prepares to skyrocket...

And you could be handed an absolute fortune, month after month, through 2012.

Read our latest report right now to find out how.

San Francisco is very close, with several bids for potential suppliers in hand. It intends to obtain 51% of its electric supply from renewables by 2017 — more than double what the ineffectual state renewable portfolio standard (RPS) mandates.

The Kings River Conservation District in the San Joaquin Valley, the farming area that forms the southern part of California's Central Valley, tried to form a CCA since the law was passed but has essentially given up. It was simply going to cost them too much to fight the opposition of PG&E, the state's largest utility.

With 15 million customers, PG&E has the budget and the lawyers to easily win a pitched battle with a struggling farming community. Instead, Kings River has opted to issue bonds and build its own power plants running on local solar, micro-hydro, and biomass resources.

In Marin County, where I live, the effort to create the Marin Energy Authority (MEA) CCA has been under way for six years. The county and all but three cities within it have so far chosen to join the MEA, which is scheduled to sign a power supply contract with Shell Energy North America on February 4. At that point, the majority of the county's customers would be enrolled in the program — unless they opt out.

The MEA aims to source 25% of its supply from renewables initially, growing to over 60% by 2015, and eventually to 100%.

PG&E has launched a multi-pronged assault on the MEA, feeding sour analysis and misinformation to a grand jury investigating the proposal; creating negative press; sending out a direct mail assault full of distortions under the auspices of a "Common Sense Coalition," which I stapled to my wall, and sending consultants to represent its views at local government meetings.

With the contract deadline at hand, the battle has intensified as city councils and the county board of supervisors decided whether to remain with the program.

I have followed the MEA since its creation, including brief correspondence with Paul Fenn, who authored the CCA laws, and conversations with local elected officials who support the MEA. Over the last two weeks, I showed up at my city council and county meetings to share my view on why it's imperative for municipalities to take control of their own renewable energy procurement. And I have a meeting scheduled this week with the mayor to explain my reasons in more detail. I consider it my civic duty and a fulfillment of my resolution to work harder on local solutions.

CCAs are a different sort of secession than the State of Jefferson, but the aims are really the same: to let local communities take advantage of their resources when their faith in the state has failed.

Smart grid technologies and rooftop solar need not wait for sweeping support from the federal and state levels. Indeed, given the extraordinary fiduciary stress that federal and state governments are under, I don't believe local communities can afford to wait for it. Local supply is now the name of the game. God bless the child that's got his own.

Add in "micro-islanding" capabilities, so small services areas can disconnect from the larger grid and get by on their own distributed generation capacity, and you have the seeds of a full-blown renewable power rebellion. I have no doubt that if we pulled out all the stops on local generation capacity, and pumped water up the mountain as storage capacity, that we could get by on our own just fine.

After years of watching my state government fail to meet its renewable energy targets... of watching my utility monopoly stymie the rapid deployment of renewables... of watching the public utilities commission install a torturous obstacle course of red tape in the path of rooftop solar... I'm willing to carry that rebel flag.

It might be the only way forward.

Until next time,

Chris

The Future of the Southwest: Localization and Carrying Capacity

For the holidays this year, I stuck with my vow to never fly again at Christmas and opted to drive the roughly 1,600 mile round trip instead.

It's only a couple of hours longer than flying, each way, a bit cheaper, and a whole lot more enjoyable. (And as for the carbon footprint, it's hard to say but probably smaller.)

On the way, I had ample time to muse about the future and take in the on-the-ground reality of the Southwest. Foremost in my mind was the question: How will these communities fare in the transition to a localized, renewably-powered future?

As I explained in my final columns of last year, I am pretty much done with talking about the problems of peak oil (really, "peak everything") and climate change. That message is tired, and the tipping points have arrived. The time for ringing the alarm bell and counting on federal or state solutions has passed. From now on, we all need to be eyes-front, focused on what we can do locally.

So I'd like to begin this year by sharing a few observations I made on my trip...

How To Make Money From Every Car Produced

Despite what you may read in the papers, the global auto industry is thriving…

In fact auto production world-wide is increasing 6% this year.

And after a four-year study, we uncovered how you could get paid from every single one made — no matter what happens to an automaker’s share price.

Click here to find out how...

A View from the Road

California's Central Valley — the source of 8% of the nation's food supply — was my first long stretch southward through endless fields producing garlic, lettuce, fruits and nuts, grapes and raisins, and other produce. Staggering under the combined pressures of rising agricultural input costs, a falling water table, reduced water flows from the Sacramento Delta, and immigrant labor issues, it offered a clear window into the economic malaise of California's farming communities.

Just four days before Christmas, shopping mall parking lots looked only one-quarter full and the roads were mostly empty. Seemingly every industrial building along the highway through Modesto had a "For Lease" sign on it. The first hopping-busy shopping scene I saw was a flea market in the little farming town of Kingsburg. Highway marquees offered hotel rooms for $35 to $40 a night in Fresno. And in Bakersfield, the majority of billboards offered legal help to fight speeding tickets.

From there I headed west into one of the few places on earth that you're likely to see an oil pumpjack in a vineyard: the Kern County oil fields, where "horse head" pumps still wheeze away, squeezing the last drops from giant fields that have been in production since the late 1800s.

A few miles farther down the road I climbed into the Tehachapi Pass, the site of one of the nation's oldest (and one of the world's largest) wind farms, producing over 1.4 billion kWh per year of electricity. Originally built in the early 1980s and updated over the years, it offers a unique look at evolution of wind technology, with over 5,000 turbines running the gamut from small, old, broken ones to modern 1.5 MW monsters operating at over 40% capacity factors. The area is slated for additional development this year, including a new 30 MW project by Western Wind Energy (CVE: WND).

(Sorry for the less-than-professional quality cell phone pics from the road. I could have found better ones online, but I liked the foto vérité of these.)

Continuing on through several hours of open desert strewn with plastic bags (if you still need a reason to carry your own reusable shopping bag, consider that one), I made my way into Mohave County, Arizona, along much of old Route 66. I soaked in the nostalgia of remnant, weathered hotels and restaurants from its glory days. A few isolated watering holes now sport their own wind turbines and solar PV arrays, but from what I overheard and saw on the local Craigslist, a job — any kind of job — was hard to find in these parts. Things have been tough ever since the real estate bubble popped.

This is mostly mining territory: a blue-collar, staunchly conservative county. Yet fully a quarter of a local rag I picked up — the Economic Development Journal of Mohave County out of Bullhead City, Arizona — featured stories on energy. There was fuss over the water requirements and transmission line siting for a proposed $2 billion, 340 MW parabolic trough concentrating solar thermal power (CSP) plant. New state rules requiring utilities to develop demand-side energy management and efficiency programs were discussed in detail, as was the award of Energy Star status to eight county buildings. There was even an account of a recent presentation by a university professor on peak oil.

I continued on to my family's cabin under the shadow of the Mogollon Rim, a roughly 200-mile-long escarpment at the edge of the Colorado Plateau that spans much of Arizona. It's an area well loved by the great Western novelist Zane Grey, who had a cabin near ours. We cozied up there for a week in wood-fired comfort in freezing temperatures, including a day spent fighting with old manually-oiled chain saws and laying up more wood, during which I momentarily wondered if it wasn't actually easier when I was a kid and we did it using a two-man cross-cut saw. He who cuts his own wood heats himself twice, as they say.

On the return trip, I detoured up to the Grand Canyon because I hadn't been there in many years. Unfortunately, it wasn't the best day to visit. A snowstorm had blown in to the Kaibab Plateau just as I arrived, making for very poor visibility (and some sketchy driving, even in 4WD).

The Kaibab, of course, is the site of one of the sharpest lessons in carrying capacity in American history. Beginning in 1906 at the order of President Teddy Roosevelt, hunting was banned and livestock grazing was curtailed in order to encourage the population of some 4,000 deer who made their home there. The following year, the Forest Service embarked on a program to kill the natural predators of deer, including mountain lions, wolves, coyotes, and bobcats. The deer population exploded and reached around 100,000 before overbrowsing of the sparse habitat caused them to starve to death. From 1925-1926, an estimated 60,000 deer died of starvation and the rangelands were permanently damaged, leaving it with a far lower carrying capacity. American wildlands management practices were forever changed, as we learned the importance of keeping animal populations within the ability of natural environments to sustain them.

Jr. Mining Outfit Unlocks $550 Billion Deposit

... And surges 207%!

Trading for $1.42, this tiny junior recently unlocked a metals deposit in Minnesota that's worth more than half a trillion dollars!

As official mining operations begin, investors loading up right now could easily triple their money over the coming months...

Click here to find out why.

Mad Max Wasteland or Desert Oases?

The same lesson remains to be learned, however, with respect to human population. The problem of making our world sustainable is infinitely more complex.

What is the true carrying capacity of America, if the San Joaquin Valley's water problems persist? About one-fifth of California's total electrical power demand is used to pump water; about four-fifths of the water pumped in California is used to irrigate agriculture.

The ability of the state to build sustainable power supply — like those turbines in Tehachapi — has direct implications on the nation's food supply. Likewise, much of the population of Los Angeles could not exist without the massive pipeline system that brings the city water from the Colorado River.

How will the little mining towns of northwestern Arizona fare as fossil fuels decline? They'll still be able to ship their minerals by rail along the freight tracks I paralleled on Route 66, but they'll need to have alternate sources of revenue if peak oil quenches economic growth.

Supporting those proposed solar arrays and grid connections could mean the difference between thriving and shrinking, which explains why in a parched, windswept, and sun-baked land like Mohave County, the need for local water and energy supply is urgent enough to override the usual political bent and make strange bedfellows of Republicans and renewable energy advocates. Such alliances will become more common in a century of decline. Necessity wins over ideology every time.

In the Bay Area where I live, the last few years has seen an increasing incidence of water main breaks and exploding transformers, sewage spills, bridges becoming unsafe, and roads becoming more patch and pothole than pavement, as its aging infrastructure crumbles and fails. Governor Schwarzenegger went begging the federal government this week for financial aid, and proposed privatizing prisons in an effort to close a budget gap that now runs into the hundreds of billions. A downgrade of the state's debt rating seems inevitable for a state that is too big to not fail. Where will the revenue come from to fix all this, and keep the water flowing to the San Joaquin Valley, plus build out a new renewable energy and rail infrastructure?

Arizona's in only slightly better shape. A week before Christmas, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer told her cabinet to slash spending sharply and push criminal alien prisoners back onto the Feds as quickly as possible, as she faces the prospect of borrowing $700 million a month to stay operational, and a looming 2011 fiscal year deficit of $3.4 billion. Solar power could be a massive financial boon to the state, but popular support has been sluggish and the leadership has been slow to understand the energy-water nexus. The solar potential of Arizona is far greater with photovoltaics and air-cooled CSP than water-cooled CSP.

The food production of the San Joaquin; the wind turbines in Tehachapi; the oil fields of Kern County; the solar resource of Arizona; the water resources of the Rockies that sustain its dense low desert populations... these all depend in one fashion or another on a complex, interconnected infrastructure of commerce powered by cheap fossil fuels.

No one has even begun to seriously add up the costs of transitioning it to renewable power and rail transport. The tab will run into the double-digit trillions for the state of California alone. If the state fails — and I think it could — then where will the investment come from? Can we still imagine a debt-based federal infrastructure spending program that would utterly dwarf the New Deal? If not, then the transition will be financed and built from the bottom up... or not at all.

I'm still betting that trillions of dollars will be spent over the coming decades to cut waste, build more wind turbines and solar plants, erect a long distance HVDC transmission grid, implement a smart grid with micro-islanding capabilities, stimulate a rail renaissance, and try to keep the American machine humming.

That's why I call it "the greatest investment event of the century." The investment opportunity in the Southwest is absolutely staggering, if the capital can be found.

But should those efforts prove too little, too late — and by my count, we're already 30 years too late — the long-term fate of individual communities will be largely decided by what they do in the next two decades. What they have at the end of that period may be what they'll have to live with for many decades afterward. The resources they depend on today may be stranded.

My family may indeed fall back on the old cross-cut saw to cut our firewood. The Tehachapi locals may have power, but struggle to maintain food supply. The mining towns of Arizona may wish they'd done more to deploy solar, especially water-pumping solar systems, when the getting was good.

Communities that localize their supplies of food, water, and energy, with a sharp eye on local carrying capacity (which is to say, those who have the ability to disconnect from the complex systems around them and be self-sufficient), could have a reasonably good future. Those that don't may find themselves following the deer of the Kaibab Plateau.

The question for investors is this: Fifty years from now, will Route 66 be a blasted wasteland of ghost towns, a Mad Max relic of the fossil fuel age... or a string of small, self-sufficient oases, each with their own solar arrays, wind turbines, backyard gardens, and railroad depots?

I'll have more to say on that subject next week when I write for Green Chip Stocks.

Until next time,

Chris

All photos by Chris Nelder

P.S. It's amazing how some people still get cold feet when it comes to their investments. That should never be the case. Take my colleague, Ian Cooper, for example. He's had so much success trading in this market, his readers have made a small fortune. And things are about to get much better for them...

Last week, Denmark gave up its control of a tiny chunk of Arctic tundra that has a $273 billion secret — and Ian's prepared a detailed report to enable his readers to get an early foothold. You can read the free report here.

Energy Outlook for the Next Decade: Part 2

Last week, I explored some of the big themes for the coming decade. For my final column of the year, I offer my specific outlooks for oil, natural gas, coal, renewables, uranium, efficiency, water, and agriculture.

Oil

Oil will probably spend 2010 rangebound between $60 and $75, but could fall lower if the deflationary recession persists.

As I discussed in Part 1, it will probably take until 2012-2013 for demand growth to push the current 4-5 mbpd of spare capacity back down to the 1% breaking point, but then we should see another price spike.

For reasons I have discussed previously, I'm no longer convinced that the next few cycles of oil prices will breach the $147 peak or the $33 low set in 2008. But if Cohen's diagram (see Part 1) is correct, then we should continue to expect higher highs and higher lows, with oil peaking somewhere around $160s and bottoming around the $50s in the next cycle (with an error bar of perhaps $20!).

What the coal industry doesn't want you to know can

Make you a lot of money!

Click here for more.

The best way to play it will be to scale in on the descent and scale out on the ascent, rather than trying to time the tops and bottoms.

By mid-decade, I think the world will be convinced that the peak of oil is in the past, putting an end to that debate. The realization should kick off an intense round of competition to secure the remaining resources, drawing more Chinese money to Canada, Brazil, and Africa, and committing the U.S. to retaining its military foothold in the Middle East.

Coal

As much as I hate to say it, coal is poised for a long-term bull market. As oil, and then natural gas decline, the world will fall back on it as the cheapest hydrocarbon of last resort in the next decade. It will be the fallback feedstock for liquid fuels for cars, trucks, and airplanes, plastics, and industrial chemicals.

The world will groan under the CO2 output of the devil we don't know, but will choose it over the devil we do know: economic decline. Therefore I expect the better part of the coal boom to fall in the latter half of the decade, as emissions concerns are overridden by economic pressure. Coal-to-liquids, in particular, will be the recipient of heavy sponsorship from the military and aviation sectors.

Natural Gas

The next decade outlook for natural gas is the most uncertain of all. The current glut in North America owing to the shale gas boom could be resolved in one of two ways: It will either continue through the decade, if long-term production rates are sustained at high levels, or it will crash around 2013-2014 if production falls rapidly after the initial burst of output, as some analysts believe.

There simply isn't enough data to make that call at this point, but my gut feeling is that there will be a short-term boom for the next few years, and a significant load will be shifted from diesel to CNG for transport trucks. Then supply will peter out before the end of the decade, with some ensuing panic.

Boom-and-bust cycles will characterize the North American gas market until prices stabilize above $7 per thousand cubic feet. LNG export capacity will continue to grow in the Middle East and Russia, but most of it will go to non-U.S. customers, and the North American market will remain largely domestic.

Uranium

As a spate of recent news reports have recognized, the global uranium supply is running low. We've nearly worked through the stockpile of uranium from retired nuclear weapons, and the quality and availability of fresh ores to mine is falling. As I do not see any significant momentum toward next generation reactor designs, I believe light water reactors will continue to dominate the nuclear sector, which means another decade of high demand for uranium.

While uranium supply peaks or declines, demand will continue to increase as new reactors are built, particularly in China and India. Nuclear power will not add a significant amount of primary energy to the global mix, but uranium will be a hot commodity. It will see at least one, and maybe two boom-and-bust cycles in the next decade.

One no-brainer investment in this sector would be Cameco Corporation (NYSE: CCJ). They've been making good progress lately and I think they will succeed in pumping the water out of their Cigar Lake mine and putting it back into action.

The whole uranium producer group should be a long-term hold for the decade.

Agriculture

At this point, I can't really think of any reason to be bearish about agriculture. Fertilizer and grains will be hot throughout the decade as we try to feed the world's growing population and combat the decline of oil with biofuels.

The added pressure will only exacerbate the problems inherent in commercial agriculture, accelerating the boom in organic and local food production.

The encroaching desertification of California — along with price spikes in oil — will make it increasingly difficult to export its produce to the Midwest and East Coast (unless by some miracle we get very serious, very quickly about rail in this country). This will have wide-ranging and very long-term implications for U.S. food supply.

GMOs designed for drought tolerance and water efficiency plays in the ag sector will figure prominently. Both technologies will probably see a frantic investment bubble this decade. How long they can hold back the tide of climate change and desertification will remain an open question in the ‘10s.

The long-term trend for agriculture is much easier to identify. By the end of the century, nearly all of our food supply will have to be relocalized. Those who are paying attention, however, will realize it by the end of this decade.

Accordingly, farmland will continue to be a hot market throughout the decade, particularly in Africa, Asia, Central and South America, and possibly Canada.

"Home Repossessions Up 44% Over Last Year"

The dollar's plummeting... Unemployment remains at record levels... And the foreclosure crisis is just heating up...

But as bad as the numbers look — and as they get worse — one company's guaranteed to thrive from it all.

In fact as lenders work through their mountains of foreclosures, this outfit prepares to skyrocket — and could hand you an absolute fortune, month after month, through 2012.

Click here to find out how.

Water

Water will be one of the biggest investment areas — and socially speaking, one of the biggest pressure points — of the next decade, due to climate change and simple population overshoot.

This month brought three fresh examples of the issues we're facing:

In a classic case of the energy-water nexus, the long-running drought in South America has reduced Venezuela's hydropower supply enough to force them to cut back on oil refining activity, with the end result that they'll have less heating oil to send to places like China this winter. China will make up the loss by burning more coal.
Much of East Africa received only 5% of its normal rainfall in November, putting millions of people at risk of starvation.
A new report found that the aquifers supporting the Central Valley of California, a region that produces 8% of the U.S. food supply, have lost more than 30 cubic kilometers of water (about 8 trillion gallons) since 2003 due to drought, reduced water exports from the Sacramento Delta, and too much groundwater pumping.

Water desalination and purification have long been a major investment focus in the Middle East, but the American Southwest, Australia, Africa, and South America will join them this decade as new markets in desperate need of solutions. Technologies running the gamut from personal water treatment to city-scale water desalination will benefit from this potentially enormous market.

Efficiency

Efficiency is by far the low-hanging fruit in our declining energy future, and this will be the Decade of Efficiency. Consider this simple metric: It takes $4-$5 in solar PV to generate the same amount of energy that $1 in insulation measures will save.

Cash for Clunkers and Cash for Caulkers were only the beginning of a long decade of incentives for higher efficiency. Not just cars and buildings... but appliances, combined heat and power applications, district heating from co-located waste heat generators, and dozens of other approaches will be vigorously pursued. By the end of the decade, I expect the efficiency of U.S. appliances and vehicles to approach what Europe enjoys today.

The largest niche in efficiency will be retrofitting homes with insulation, caulking, windows, and solar generation. Small businesses doing energy auditing and building efficiency upgrades — like San Francisco's Recurve, who have figured out how to scale their businesses — will be home runs. By the end of the decade, I also expect building efficiency, good passive solar design, and low water use to be mandatory elements of architectural college curricula.

Building the smart grid will be a top priority for this decade, along with at least the first part of a long-distance national HVDC grid. Not only will it enable the growth of renewable power, but it will be a saving grace in helping us cut the waste and make the most of our existing grid power supply.

Renewables

Renewable energy is still at the beginning of at least a 30-year secular bull market, and the decline of fossil fuels means the sky's the limit for its growth outlook. I doubt that we'll see again in our lifetimes the kind of growth that will happen in this next decade. I'm talking a once-in-a-century bull market here.

Solar and wind will continue to be the dominant technologies and receive strong investment, led by China and a few other projects like Masdar City and then moving into widespread adoption in the U.S. and the unsolarized parts of Europe (France, I'm looking at you!) by the end of the decade.

The intermittency problem of wind and solar will be largely solved this decade, as new storage solutions come to market. Hundreds (perhaps thousands) of companies, small and large, have been working on a whole array of approaches to the problem, and I expect a few winners to emerge this decade. My bet that that a combination of vehicle-to-grid technology, flywheel storage, and large battery arrays or ultra capacitors will be the early winners. But there are many others, including stationary micro- or nano-scale hydrogen storage (but not hydrogen vehicles), pumped water, and compressed air.

If regulatory and financing hurdles can be overcome — and I think they can in the next ten years — concentrating solar power (CSP) also holds enormous potential for cracking the storage problem at grid scale in solar-rich regions.

As high as my long-term hopes for it have been, I reluctantly conclude that the geothermal sector will continue to see sluggish growth for at least the first half of the decade, due the difficulty of raising financing, regulatory, and underwriting hurdles and technical issues.

Uncertainty over whether "enhanced geothermal" (deep, hot rock) projects cause earthquakes has shut down two major projects this month. The AltaRock Energy project north of the Geysers in California — the first major test of enhanced geothermal in the U.S. — was terminated immediately after another major project in Basel, Switzerland, was permanently shut down in response to a government study showing it was responsible for damaging earthquakes in 2006 and 2007.

Likewise, it appears marine energy technologies are still lacking the research and development support they need to reach commercial viability. I do expect at least one or two of them to get there by the end of the decade, but I don't see them taking much market share.

Final Thoughts

The list of x-factors that could utterly change the outline I've offered here is so long that it questions the wisdom of even trying to attempt a decade-long outlook. Disease, war, natural disasters, monetary policy, drought and climate change, geopolitics, sovereign default, energy failures... you name it, it's in the mix.

The one constant we can be sure of is human nature. I'm digging into some ancient history in search of clues to the future, and I suggest that you do, too.

As we teeter on the peak of the biggest wealth bubble in human history and stare into the abyss, we would do well to learn the lessons of the past. Ours will not be the first empire to crumble, and there is nothing new about how or why it will happen. The only difference is the distance we have to fall.

It's been a tough year and a wild decade, and I'm sure most of you will be happy to put it behind us. The next decade will be considerably harder, but it will force us to rethink our values and chart a more sustainable course into the future, as well as present some of the greatest wealth-making opportunities of all time.

For example, my colleagues Sam Hopkins and Nick Hodge are venturing out into emerging markets like Peru, China, and Morocco to find clean energy investments that will allow developing countries to leapfrog carbon-intense, rich-world energy habits. And as they report from the field, subscribers to their Green Chip International stock recommendation service will benefit.

Again, my mind is drawn back to Dickens' critique of the British aristocracy in light of the French Revolution. The coming decade, as then, could be the best of times, it could be the worst of times.

One thing is guaranteed: It will not lack for excitement.

Until next time,

Chris

George Soros expects to make 1,925% gains with this little-known energy play

Investment Themes for the Next Decade

Instead of the customary next-year outlook, I am closing out the decade that John Perry Barlow so aptly termed "The Uh-ohs" with a two-part article outlining my view of energy for the next decade.

I will begin with the big themes and move on to specific fuels in Part 2 next week.

What We Have Learned

Except for a possible limited glut in natural gas (more on that next week), I now consider as axiomatic that the supply of nearly all commodities is effectively static. The ability of high prices to stimulate new production has failed, or will soon fail, in every case.

Very simply, humanity has begun to bump its head against the ceiling exactly as one would expect when population increases exponentially on a finite planet. I detailed this theme in my very first article for Angel Publishing in 2006, "The Great Awakening," and the three years since have only served to reinforce my convictions... which at the time were considered "fringe."

The events of the second half of the Uh-ohs made the whole world aware that we're getting down to the margins of fundamental needs like food, energy, land, and water.

Oil's Surprising Replacement

The new era of alternative fuels is here...

BP's catastrophic oil spill proved once again that our addiction to oil is downright dangerous.

With our need for new fuels comes a new frontier for investors of these cheaper and more reliable future fuels.

In fact alternative energy expert Nick Hodge found one "champagne of fuel" company that he expects can hand you over 1,925% gains — and you can read all about it right here.

Oil prices spiked when the margin between supply and demand fell to under 1%, taking the prices of everything from food to building materials with it. China went on a massive shopping spree, snapping up hard assets wherever it could around the globe.

Farmland in undeveloped countries became a hot market, as developing countries began seeking ways to feed their burgeoning populations. The push to make biofuels from corn had unintended consequences on food supply, prompting riots and price increases for grains and meat.

We realized that wildlife is disappearing at an extraordinary pace and that global fish populations are crashing. We saw coral reefs dying, and learned of the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch," a mass of tiny pieces of plastic floating between the Western U.S. and Asia and estimated to be as large as 5.8 million square miles.

We also heard a steady drumbeat of stories about how water was becoming a problem all over the world under the combined pressures of growing populations and climate change, and was increasingly playing a role in other complex systems.

I won't continue the sad litany — if you've been reading me for awhile, you've heard it. The important concept is that there are no supply-side answers to commodity demand beyond current levels.

Watch Your Head

If supply is static, then we must focus on demand to understand where prices are going, a factor which has more to do with the health of the global economy than ever before.

I anticipate a sharp correction for the U.S. economy some time in 2010 — probably in the second or third quarters — as the plaster applied to the holes in the economy over the last two years begins to crack. Tight credit will continue to constrain growth for several years; although mid-decade I do see potential for more government-driven spending on energy infrastructure (and hopefully, rail).

I expect China to continue to outperform and delink from the U.S. economy over the next decade, provided the latter at least stabilizes. If the U.S. should suffer another sharp fall in the next ten years — and the risk of its doing so by the hand of hyperinflation is certainly non-zero — then it will exert significant drag on China, as well.

Generally, I expect demand growth for commodities in the developing world to compensate for OECD reductions, keeping overall demand flat-to-rising throughout the decade. It is likely that the U.S. will see itself increasingly priced out of the market for oil and mineral assets.

As demand bumps repeatedly against the supply ceiling, prices will continue to follow the pattern in Dave Cohen's chart from August:

Volatility of future oil pricing. Source: Dave Cohen, "The Next Oil Shock"

At this point I would put the "we are here" mark a little farther to the right, near the top of the first upslope, as oil has been range-bound in the $70s. Somewhere around 2012, however, I agree with Cohen's expectation for demand to overcome excess supply and cause prices to spike sharply again.

There is no guarantee that the 4-5 year period from peak to peak in this first complete cycle of the second half of the Age of Oil will be a useful indicator. The period of the following cycles may lengthen or shorten, and will be heavily influenced by macro factors like monetary policy. However it does, at minimum, give us a reasonable expectation that we might see two more such cycles over the next decade.

Therefore successful investors will learn to play the range, selling higher highs and buying higher lows. Sentiment on the dollar will continue to be a useful signal, as investors continue to use commodities and gold as safe havens against inflationary fears.

A Few More Themes

Desperation measures like big water projects and aggressive production of biofuels and coal-to-liquids will probably move forward, even if they're ultimately doomed ideas. Self-interest and political popularity will continue to trump science, and blow up more than a few investment bubbles.

Self-reliance will continue to enjoy a surge in popularity, at least among the 10% or so of the population who are inclined to it. I expect millions of backyard gardens to bloom in the next decade, along with an explosion in residential and small commercial solar thermal and PV. Survival gear and guns should also enjoy continued growth.

I maintain my view that carbon capture and sequestration will be a boondoggle (although it may enjoy a period of investment froth), and the entire focus on carbon emissions will be ineffectual, because it is a backwards approach to the problem. One cannot effectively deal with the problem of climate without first understanding energy. I predicted that Copenhagen would be a failure, and I remain convinced that whatever progress we do make in reducing carbon emissions will only come from deploying efficiency and renewable energy.

As I detailed in November, hard assets will continue to be a hot sector for most of the next decade, at least until investors in them start meeting some resistance (such as hostility to foreign investment and rising nationalism). Next week, one country is losing control of more than $273 billion worth of rare earth metals. My colleague, Ian Cooper, has outlined everything in his latest special report. You can access that report by clicking here.

Gold has been an extremely crowded trade this year, but as long as the world continues attempts to print its way out of a depression that is fundamentally caused by failing fuels, its bull market case will be intact. However, the volatility will be rough and hard to trade. I would be more comfortable taking a modest, perhaps 10% exposure to gold and simply holding it through the decade.

Finally, I believe the coming decade will see a continued and widening disparity of wealth, at least in the U.S. The ranks of the poor will swell, and the buying power of the middle class will be destroyed. A growing resentment toward the rich seems inevitable, and I expect it to lead to some degree of social unrest. It would not surprise me at all to see America elect a hard-right, authoritarian president in 2012 or 2016.

In summary, I believe the defining characteristic of the next decade will be our coming to grips with the limits to growth. We're going to become increasingly sensitized to the decline of natural capital, and our vulnerability to the effects of climate change. Conflicts will erupt over everything from fossil fuels to ecological services (like water purification), and when they do, self-preservation will triumph over lofty concerns like climate change or garbage in the Pacific every time.

Next week I will offer my specific outlook for oil, natural gas, coal, renewables, uranium, efficiency, water, and agriculture — so tune in for that.

As I realize this column runs so close to Christmas Day, I hope these somewhat dark themes find you in thoughtful contemplation, not dread, as you relax with family and enjoy some of the benefits of civilization at its peak.

As I like to say, these are the good ol' days. That will be my meditation, and I hope it will be yours. There is more to life than money, and our moments of peace and joy are priceless.

Until next time,

Chris

Our Four-Year Study’s Shocking Results!

How would you like to get paid for every single car, van, truck, or motorcycle made — not sold, made?

It doesn’t matter what happens to a company’s share price, either. As each one rolls off the assembly line, you make money.

After a four-year intensive study, our very own Luke Burgess uncovered how you could do just that… without ever leaving the comfort of your home.

All the details are right here for you in his latest, free report.

You Can't Trust the 2010 EIA Annual Energy Outlook

Suppose you worked at the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the agency within the U.S. Department of Energy charged with keeping data and making projections on energy, and you had to produce an annual report with a scenario for the next 25 years.

Being an intelligent and informed investor, you might grapple with the $147 to $33 range in oil prices over the last year and try to imagine how such volatility might happen in the future.

You might be tempted to model a few economic factors such as GDP growth rates and credit availability, and how they affect investment in energy supply.

You might consider the price at which producing a barrel of oil or a thousand cubic feet of natural gas becomes profitable, and the price at which it becomes too expensive and destroys demand.

North America’s oil renaissance begins with this company...

This $4-a-share driller is the front-runner in a forgotten INLAND oil field that’s all of a sudden the hottest energy territory in the western hemisphere.

Their new drilling technology is the key — here’s the proof that two-year gains of 1,239% or more await those who move fast...

You might take peak oil, peak gas, and peak coal into account, since the best available models on those subjects all suggest peaks within the time frame of your scenario.

You might extend the line tracing the 40-year trend of declining U.S. oil production.

You might look at the steadily falling prices of power generated from wind and solar and the steadily increasing prices from fossil fuels, and include those in your model.

You might take a cautiously optimistic view of the future of unconventional fuels like shale gas and biofuels, since their commercial history is short and good data is hard to come by...plus there are all those niggling questions about things like long-term production rates, net energy return and fuel-vs.-food tradeoffs.

You might include a tip of the hat, at least, to some sort of future pricing for carbon emissions, since it's all the rage right now and it seems likely that something will happen along those lines before 2035, even if this year's Copenhagen summit is a failure.

You'd wind up with thousands of linked, detailed spreadsheets, employing all sorts of advanced mathematical functions to tease coherence out of chaos.

And you'd most definitely ring the alarm bell that we've got a serious energy supply problem on our hands and we'd better do something about it, fast.

You'd probably point out that moving aggressively to renewables could solve the climate change problem, and do it without a global agreement on emissions.

But then, you're not working for the EIA.

Anatomy of an Illusion

If you were, you'd do something like this...

You'd get out your crayons and your graph paper, and starting with your most recent data, you'd plot a nice, steady 1.5% global growth rate for energy demand over the next 25 years.

You'd do something similar for supply so that it matches demand at prices that also climb at a nice steady rate. For oil prices, call it, oh, how about 0.4% per year? That sounds pretty good.

You'd draw basically flat lines into the future for all the fuels dominant today, since you know they have serious challenges ahead, and then draw sharply rising lines for the latest and greatest technology, projecting enormous growth rates for things like shale gas and enhanced oil recovery.

You'd be sure to count all possible supply from new sources — like a new gas pipeline from Alaska — even if those projects don't yet exist. Hey, it could happen!

You would not, however, factor in any CO2 reduction, because policies to control it don't exist.

Naturally, you'd assume that the next 25 years would show gradual economic growth, so there wouldn't be any troublesome issues like credit availability or depressed consumer demand to worry about.

You'd wind up with a chart like this:

AEO 2010, Figure 1: U.S. Primary Energy Consumption. Source

In sum, you'd present a picture of the future that looks like a continuation of the best parts of the past, with none of the bad parts.

You'd assert that the declining trend of U.S. oil production would be reversed by the miracle of technology, and grow from 5 million barrels per day (mbpd) in 2008 to over 6 mbpd in 2027, then flatten out for decades to come. You certainly wouldn't try to explain how that would happen while mature fields continue to decline — in fact, you wouldn't mention decline rates at all.

You'd explain that, even though domestic biofuels will fail to meet their 2022 renewable fuels target, they'll exceed it by 2035 as new sources that don't exist commercially today, like biomass-to-liquids and cellulosic ethanol, suddenly bloom.

To that you'd add some major gains from efficiency and "structural changes" like switching to hybrid cars — hey, what if the fleet of alternative vehicles tripled in the next five years? — eliminating about 90% of the new energy demand that would otherwise result from a constantly growing economy.

Our Four-Year Study’s Shocking Results!

How would you like to get paid for every single car, van, truck, or motorcycle made — not sold, made?

It doesn’t matter what happens to a company’s share price, either. As each one rolls off the assembly line, you make money.

After a four-year intensive study, our very own Luke Burgess uncovered how you could do just that… without ever leaving the comfort of your home.

All the details are right here for you in his latest, free report.

You'd do away with the problem that much of the U.S. nuclear fleet has to be rebuilt in the next 25 years because the reactors are past their expiration dates and living on extended operating licenses already, by assuming that they'll get another extension to operate beyond 60 years. So you won't have to worry about any loss in nuclear capacity.

Finally, you'd toss in a scenario for electricity production where renewables grow modestly then flatten out, while the use of cheap biomass suddenly explodes for unknown reasons.

You won't explain where that biomass comes from, or the net energy of using it, or any difficult details like that.

You'd continue the recent sharp growth curve for wind for a few years then flatten it out, perhaps because you don't think a storage solution will be found to address the intermittency issue. After all, it's not your job to know about emerging technologies like flywheel storage systems or V2G — it's your job to make the future look kinda like the past, only better.

That would give you a chart like this:

AEO 2010, Figure 5: Projection of U.S. non-hydropower electricity sources. Source

And voilá! You'd be able to claim that U.S. oil demand peaked in 2005, and would remain flat around 19 mbpd for the next 25 years — even while the economy continued to grow. It's like magic!

Just Doing Your Job

It wouldn't bother you in the least that none of your projections use the best available information on these complex matters.

You'd be completely untroubled by the fact that oil prices averaged $74 in 2007, $100 in 2008, and $59 in 2009, but you drew straight lines into the future. Presumably, all that volatility owed to noise outside your sphere of consideration, and won't happen again.

You'd sleep just fine at night despite the obvious vapidity, in retrospect, of the oil price predictions in your 2004 annual outlook... nor would you be perturbed if I overlaid your 2010 prediction on it in chart form:

Three AEO 2004 oil price projections, plus AEO 2010 Reference Case. Chart by Chris Nelder.

You'd be careful to follow the lead the IEA set in its recent annual report and arrive at basically the same prediction they did for future oil supply, while trying not to piss off your bosses.

You'd be sustaining the illusions that everybody around you believes in and supporting their religious beliefs about endless growth rates, American ingenuity, and so on. Nobody would fault you for that!

You could do all this secure in the knowledge that, apart from a few snarky financial bloggers out there who nobody reads anyway, you'll never be challenged on any of it. The press will dutifully report your projections verbatim, and won't ask you any difficult questions.

And when the business and policy leaders of America drive the whole enterprise off the net energy cliff because they relied on your expert opinion and neglected to invest in the renewable energy solutions of the future in time, you wouldn't worry your pretty little head about it.

After all, that's not your job.

[Author's note: This is based on the "early release" of the EIA's 2010 Annual Energy Outlook which offered only a summary press release, a slide deck of charts and some data, without the main text. Perhaps when the final report is released in March 2010 they will explain themselves better, but I doubt it. The EIA does an excellent job of collating and reporting historical energy data, but they should be statutorily barred from making projections.]

Until next time,

Chris

P.S. While the EIA may rule the data roost in the U.S., my colleagues Nick Hodge and Sam Hopkins scour a world's worth of energy info to bring Green Chip International readers top global clean energy stocks. To learn why more and more of the clean energy investment action is taking place beyond American shores, read Nick and Sam's new report: Racing to Build the Perfect City.

Real Solutions to the Energy and Climate Crises

As my regular readers know, I've spent much of this year contemplating big themes, like the long-term picture for energy, energy and monetary policy, black swans and the human penchant for valuing the present more than the future, the problems of complex systems like the energy-food-water nexus, sustainability, and the relationship between climate change and peak oil.

As this year draws to a close and I review my work, the biggest question that emerges is about why it is so incredibly difficult to reach people on these subjects.

It's more than the usual culprits. Yes, the corporate media and the ad-supported business model are problems — like when I was called a "peak freak" on television and given no opportunity to respond to my opponent's disinformation.

Yes, the overweening influence of corporate lobbyists has effectively neutralized policy and confused the public debate on our most serious problems. Yes, the capitalistic system favors short-term concentrated profits over long-term public good. And yes, the simple human preference for happy talk over sad stories plays a role in our denial.

The real problem is much more pervasive. Those actors cannot explain more fundamental questions:

Why has our economic theory failed us?
Why is the reality of climate change so hard to accept?
Why does climate change dominate public dialogue while the more proximate threat of peak oil remains far off the radar?
Why do we have such resistance to change?
Why would anyone ever think Dubai World was a good idea?
Why is talking about population control — arguably the only real way out of our predicament — taboo?

508% Gains in 12 months: How to Plunder BP's Blunder

The worst environmental disaster in US history is happening right now...

But despite the tragedy in the Gulf, there's still a way for you to turn BP's incompetence to your financial advantage.

Find out the names of 3 small American companies using the backlash against offshore drilling to become the leaders of the new inland oil boom...

This new report has all the information smart investors need to bank 508% gains by this time next year.

For over 40 years, our public dialogue has gotten progressively dumber and more polarized. The one "town hall meeting" I attended on health care was a horrifying display of tribal theater, with both sides screaming at the other and drowning out the elected official. It did not even remotely resemble intelligent discussion of issues.

Our news media have substituted entertainment for information and sponsor-endorsed opinion for neutral reportage, while the literacy of the public and the capacity for critical thought have progressively declined. Orwell, Huxley, Bradbury, Vonnegut, Chomsky, and a long line of others have decried it all along.

Yet it persists, and grows. Why?

Addicted to Fantasy

I discovered a partial answer to this question in the terrific new book, Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle by veteran journalist Chris Hedges. He argues that America has been slowly transformed into a nation entranced by Horatio Alger-wrapped fantasies of personal wealth, fame, and power. Our culture has been utterly subsumed by a fantasy world, he says, in which celebrity worship, dumbed-down "news," and consumer messaging form an impenetrable veil of manipulated reality.

Hedges offers some compelling evidence: Nearly a third of the population is almost or fully illiterate. A third of high school graduates, and 42% of college graduates, never read another book for the rest of their lives. Eighty percent of U.S. families didn't buy or read one book in 2007. We did, however, watch 28 hours a week of television. Each.

Television, where we have hundreds of channels but nothing is on... nothing but unimaginative, formulaic entertainment packages for highly crafted messages designed to make you buy, buy, buy.

Jon Stewart offered a great example this week in his takedown of Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson — a high school class valedictorian, Stanford honors graduate, and former Miss America with classical violin chops — who pretended to resort to the dictionary to find out what the words "ignoramus," "double-dip recession," and "czar" meant.

Instead of discussing the content or import of the leaked "Climategate" emails, Carlson cited a poll asking if global warming research had been falsified... a poll which added up to 120%. Public opinion, however dumb, is now more important than facts.

I had to sort though dozens of articles and hours of radio and television that merely repeated the corruption allegations before discovering two decent articles (at New Scientist and Real Climate) that described what the "scandalous" e-mails said and what they meant.

What I found was... nothing interesting. Just scientists, doing their regular jobs of sorting through and correcting the errors in data.

But a few words, made in private conversation and taken out of context, is all Sen. James Inhofe and his tribe of right-wing activists needed to renew their assault on climate change legislation. His effort is no doubt enabled by the fact that only 11 of the 538 members of the Senate and House have backgrounds in science or engineering, and most are functionally illiterate about energy or climate science.

In fact, the deniers have no alternate scientific theory for global warming, nor do they care to formulate one. They only need to cast doubt on the existing research and claim that the scientific process has been corrupted.

The actual significance of the science, or lack thereof, in Climategate was quickly rendered irrelevant; that irrelevance was then seized and gloriously amplified in the media. The spectacle is more exciting than the dull facts about the science, so the media only care to perpetuate the spectacle. It's entertainment, not news.

The "climate change is bunk" message was sent, but how many Americans who heard it then spent any effort trying to figure out what the e-mail leak actually meant, as I did? I'm guessing very few.

Perhaps a third of the public now believes that there is some sort of conspiracy to destroy the economy by taking action on climate change. The obvious lack of any conspirators is irrelevant. Merely saying there is a conspiracy is enough.

Global media king Rupert Murdoch pounded the final nail into the Fourth Estate's coffin this week in a Wall Street Journal editorial where he argued passionately that media should only give consumers what they want. Government help, non-profit status, or any other mechanism that would support journalism without a profit motive is insidiously evil in his view. Yet he asserts that merely giving customers what they want — even if they only want illusions and circuses, and have no patience for thoughtful discussion of matters like policy or science — produces a free and informed citizenry.

This seems an utterly indefensible stance. The Fourth Estate is much wider, but also considerably shallower now than it was in 1888 when Oscar Wilde wrote: "The Lords Temporal say nothing, the Lords Spiritual have nothing to say, and the House of Commons has nothing to say and says it. We are dominated by Journalism."

Our appetite for illusion has made us, as Aldous Huxley feared, a nation of passive, self-centered consumer idiots, endlessly distracted by trivia and irrelevance, embedded in a alternate reality matrix, saturated with information we don't comprehend, easily confused, and easily led down paths we would never choose if we were informed and thinking clearly.

Big Pharma's Nightmare is Your Ticket to 1,000% Gains...

It's no secret Big Pharma makes a killing from the vaccines that keep us healthy.

But what if there were a technology that could make it so we never had to get another vaccine ever again?

You can bet Big Pharma would be shaking in their boots... and the company that develops that vaccine would be destined to become very rich.

We've found just a company. They're working on the last flu shot we'll ever need... and they plan on making investors like you a whole lot of money.

Click here to learn more about the breakthrough that could earn investors up to 1,000% gains.

Peter Pan Meets Financial Truck Bomb

If you think I'm off on a tangential rant here, let me bring it home, for it has everything to do with our utter failure to respond in a meaningful way to our impending challenges, and with investing in general.

An outstanding and extremely important recent white paper by an oil and gas exploration consultant, "The Tragedy of 21 Darts," confirmed the worst of what I have come to understand about the game of projecting oil and gas reserves. Reserve calculations are essentially mathematical simulations, which are regularly distorted and misrepresented by the companies that claim them. As a hedge fund manager and oil and gas producer friend of mine commented on the paper, "The oil and gas business is a bunch of holes in the ground with liars on top."

To understand what you're buying as an oil and gas investor, you'd have to spend many hours digging through technical papers full of unfamiliar jargon. You'd have to be able to read critically and understand probability distributions. I've done it, and it's hard work. Harder than most people are willing to do.

The regulators and policymakers won't read that paper, nor will most of the industry's investors. As a result of this ignorance, the author warns, new SEC regulations will set off "a financial truck bomb that's going to blow away ‘proved reserves' as a meaningful metric of oil company assets" in January. The liars will get away with it... at least until the wells run dry.

This is why peddlers of absurd fantasies about the future of oil production, like Phil Flynn and Dan Yergin, are in the press and on the TV every day, while the people like me — patiently and diligently sorting through the facts and the fictions in search of reality — are continually marginalized.

This is why wingnuts like Sen. Inhofe get more airtime than those who could explain what the science on climate change really says.

This is why simple, rational solutions to our tangle of developing crises — like resource scarcity planning, or carbon taxes, or population control — are immediately disregarded as unworkable.

And it's why we elect leaders who massage our egos and assure us that everything will be fine, when it clearly won't.

If it doesn't conform to our fantasies and the people don't want it, then men like Murdoch will ensure we don't get it. But they'll happily sell us snake oil like space-based solar power for as long as we keep buying it.

We are not only lost in our illusions... we're in love with them.

We desperately want to believe that there are no physical limits to our insatiable desires, even on a finite planet. We'd rather poke holes in the multiplying signs that humanity on Planet Earth is fundamentally in overshoot than face the hard work of figuring out how to adapt and survive.

We're clinging to 17^th Century remnants of the Age of Enlightenment, still trying to believe that humanity has a special elevated place above Nature when it's becoming increasingly obvious that it does not. Our models of the future, our economic theory, our educational regimen, our personal and cultural ambitions, our national identity, even our very conception of Man's place in Creation have been rendered intellectually bankrupt. But we refuse to see it.

Our emotional progress is even worse. We've barely budged from total nihilism to tribalism... "The American way of life is non-negotiable," and all that rot.

We can't afford to go on this way because, as James Baldwin put it in the prologue to Hedges' book: "People who shut their eyes to reality simply invite their own destruction, and anyone who insists on remaining in a state of innocence long after that innocence is dead turns himself into a monster."

It's Up to You Now

In the absence of rational leadership, neutral journalism for the public good, or a free and informed citizenry, the task of meeting the challenges ahead falls to each of us, individually. There is no "them" who are going to sort all this out. There is only "us."

We have to own the problems of energy, food, water, climate change, population, and investments that don't go sour. They're ours.

So will be the solutions. Fortunately, there is much we can do.

Concentrate on efficiency first: Insulate your house. Get a more efficient vehicle and more efficient appliances. When an opportunity like Cash for Clunkers/Caulkers comes around, jump on it. Try to limit your driving and use public transit. Move closer to work, or vice versa.

Then do something on the supply side: Add solar PV and solar hot water to your house. Tear up your lawn and plant a vegetable garden, even if it means paying a fine to your HOA.

Rebalance your investment portfolio with a view toward long-term sustainability. Limit your exposure to dollar-denominated assets and invest in hard assets. Do your own due diligence. Eliminate your debt as quickly as possible.

Instead of hoping that your fantasies of wealth will be restored when the economy recovers, think about how you can live within your means if it never does.

And finally, don't wait for leadership in Washington. Be a leader, wherever you are. Work toward sustainable solutions, not at town hall meetings — but with your family, neighbors, friends, and local governments.

Until next time,

Chris

Energy and Capital

Cash in on $36,950 from the Nuclear Energy Renaissance in America — in Just 12 Months

I've been handed some highly classified information... and it revolves around the changing energy landscape in the United States.

As Obama hands out billions for nuclear reactor construction, there's one small energy company that's going to absolutely explode...

And I have the photograph to prove it.

Dubai and Masdar City: A Study in Contrasts

Looking at the world through the lens of energy investing and peak oil, it's hard to imagine a starker contrast than Dubai World and Masdar City.

Both will rise out of a barren wasteland of sand in less than three decades, but only one was designed to survive the future.

Dubai World was built to serve up the ultimate in luxury and decadence: Indoor ski slopes in one of the hottest places in the world. Architecture straight out of a sci-fi novel on three artificial archipelagos built into the sea. Refrigerated beach sand. Floating tennis courts. The world's largest shopping mall, featuring luxury goods, and entertainment. The world's tallest building. Hotels featuring independently rotating floors, or underwater views, or rooms with eight attendants each. And so on, ad nauseam.

Suffice it to say there's a reason why after Never Land, Dubai was the one place in the world that Michael Jackson wanted to call home.

Lacking a significant endowment of oil, Dubai sought to be the financial hub and the Las Vegas of the Middle East. Its revenue is almost entirely derived from high-rent tourism and servicing the enormous flow of petroleum capital generated by its neighbors.

But the gleaming glitter hides a dark underbelly. Those fantasy buildings were constructed on the back of slave labor from places like Ethiopia, Bangladesh, and the Philippines. While Western ex-pats live the high life drinking Moët on the beach and being waited on hand and foot, laborers do backbreaking work in the desert heat, making $5 a day... their passports confiscated, their liberty denied. Subsisting on meager rations and insufficiently desalinated water, they're forced to live in stinking, cramped, unventilated concrete ghettos an hour's bus ride away, conveniently out of sight of the rich patrons.

Convoys of trucks haul sewage out of Dubai every night because the sewer system cannot handle the load. Much of the excess gets dumped illegally into the sea, leading to unsafe, contaminated waters at the very beaches of its ultra-luxury hotels.

Our Four-Year Study’s Shocking Results!

How would you like to get paid for every single car, van, truck, or motorcycle made — not sold, made?

It doesn’t matter what happens to a company’s share price, either. As each one rolls off the assembly line, you make money.

After a four-year intensive study, our very own Luke Burgess uncovered how you could do just that… without ever leaving the comfort of your home.

All the details are right here for you in his latest, free report.

In the long history of empire and the excesses of the rich, there is nothing unusual about any of that of course. All great empires were built on the backs of slaves at one time or another and all committed their eco-sins. My point here is the utter unsustainability of the strategy.

Predictably, the bursting of the global real estate and financial bubbles took the air out of Dubai as well.

An empty villa on Palm Jumeirah. Source: New York Times

Dubai's new flagship hotel, the Atlantis, stands unfinished — its roof leaking and its rooms unwanted — on an enormously expensive artificial island. Its structured financial products, supposedly compliant with Shariah law forbidding the charging of interest, were discovered to be — surprise — not so clean. It's like an echo of the SEC's and rating agencies' complicity in enabling the subprime debacle.

Now Dubai faces sovereign default as collateral damage of the global hallucinated wealth meltdown. The news that Dubai had asked its creditors for a six-month freeze of interest payments on $26 billion in debt related to Dubai World ripped through the financial world, temporarily raising the specter of a domino effect. (The markets quickly shrugged off that fear however, realizing that the damage would be mostly contained and local.)

Masdar: City of the Future

Less than 100 miles away from the broken dream of Dubai World, a new city based on a very different dream is rising in Abu Dhabi. Masdar City aspires to be the world's first carbon-neutral, zero-waste city, a happy oasis six kilometers square with its own micro-climate, supporting 50,000 people in renewably powered harmony with nature.

Masdar City birds eye view conception. Source: Masdar City

Built from the ground up with sustainable living in mind, it will bring together the best-of-breed clean technologies: building-integrated solar photovoltaics and solar glass, solar hot water systems, smart grid technology, electric transportation, power storage, sustainable agriculture and vertical farming, water recycling and desalination, low-energy HVAC, green building materials, waste-to-energy systems... essentially everything but wind energy.

The first phase of the project is already under way. Construction of the Masdar Institute, a higher learning institution that will explore new green technologies and shepherd the best ones into commercial development, is slated for completion next year; its courtship of the world's top cleantech companies and investors has commenced. The Institute aims to be a world-class research and development hub for the solutions of the future.

Ironically, Masdar City is the dream of Sheik Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan — the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, one of the most oil-rich emirates in the UAE. Abu Dhabi claims 92 billion barrels of oil reserves, and produces 2.7 million barrels per day of oil — 85% of the UAE's total output. That's a $1.5 billion-a-week revenue stream, and the reason why Abu Dhabi has the world's richest sovereign wealth fund, worth over $700 billion.

But rather than spend it on lavish amusements and trifles as its sister did, Abu Dhabi intends to use its vast oil wealth to invest in the future. The royal family knows better than most that the punch is running low, and the oil party will be over in 30-50 years. Accordingly, it has committed $14 billion — with another $8 billion expected from outside investors — to build Masdar City as part of a 20-30 year effort to transform itself into a high-tech industrial and knowledge economy.

While the world's oil addicts continue to line up for another hit of its dwindling stash, Abu Dhabi will be weaning itself off hydrocarbons, building a semiconductor industry and turning out some of the most advanced renewable and efficiency technologies in the world. In sha' Allah.

Of course there is no guarantee that Masdar City will prove economically viable, particularly amidst a real estate collapse. And there is an exceptionally high risk of technology failure. It could turn out to be a supersized 21^st Century equivalent of the failed Biosphere project — mankind's last serious attempt at maintaining an artificial, zero-footprint environment.

Yet, it's almost unimportant whether Masdar City succeeds as the model city of a sustainable future or fails as an expensive boondoggle. As the world's first comprehensive experiment in integrating the whole spectrum of green technologies at a city scale, the results will be invaluably instructive to the reengineering of the rest of the world.

We'll have a much better idea of exactly what technology can (and can't) do. The winners that emerge from the proving ground of Masdar City will be overnight sensations and turn more than a few penny stocks into green chips.

The Samurai's Secret that can Make You 2682%

700 years ago, the first true Samurai blade was born after a few grains of this metal was added. Today, that metal is indispensable to modern industry, and yet, we're running short.

Find out why the Chinese are now hoarding every ounce they can get their hands on... And how one company may have found the solution to a global crisis.

The Past and The Future

In reality, the men behind both Dubai World and Masdar City are closely related and their investment objectives intertwined. At the very least they share a common interest in securing for themselves a prosperous future as the twilight of oil fades to black.

I have contrasted the two cities sharply to make a larger, and perhaps a moral point.

When one thinks of Dubai today, one conjures Rome... Icarus... Easter Island... the frothy head on a just-poured beer. She is the very image of the Age of Oil, in which the value of every dollar "made" was ultimately derived from cheap and easy petroleum. As oil peaked, her lavish beauty wilted. Now, the wrinkles have appeared, the plastic surgery has become a ghoulish mask, and the enticing sway of her hips has been replaced by a halting limp. Her day is gone.

Whereas Masdar City is like a phoenix, rising from the soot of the fossil fuel age and the ashes of a consumptive, wasteful way of life. She's hot, young, and sexy, and she wants to dance. She stands atop the very heart of the world's remaining oil reserves, offering the hope of a sustainable age after oil. She is the future.

As the excesses of the first half of the Age of Oil gives way to the deprivations of the second half, Masdar City represents humanity's best shot at renewal. May she live long and prosper.

Until next time,

Chris

P.S. Just as Dubai is using Masdar to hedge against the end of oil... you can use it to create vast personal wealth. In a new report, we spell out exactly how to harness the power of Masdar — and all the wealth it will create — for your personal portfolio. Click here to read it now.