Elections and Greentech, are they related?

As we head to vote here in the US and elect a new president (hopefully, at the end of the week we shall know the results), I wonder what is at stake for Greentech.

Originally, one of my opening arguments for Greentech investment was the great performance of Greentech when compared to regular stocks (see chart below)

Even though the index is bouncing back faster than the S&P500, this argument is not as powerful as it used to be (in September when the Cleantech Index was 20% to 40% above S&P500).

So, why invest on Greentech?. I believe that, in spite of Wall Street's valuation of Greentech, there is still an undeniable wave towards alternative energy, water purification and irrigation, as well as waste management optimization. Because enough people have come to realize we need to get off oil and start finding alternatives. They have also realized we need to treat our environment with respect in order to have a place where to live.

Looking at the hard facts, in today's economy, governments have become the largest corporations. As times get harder for the private sector, the governments (in theory) can print as much money as necessary to keep them afloat. Here in the US, one of the key points of the campaign was "Alternative Energy". Therefore: The largest corporation in the world has promised to pour money into Greentech

Moreover, when both candidates were asked to name plans that will get cut and plans that will remain under the new economic reality; both, Obama and McCain specifically named their Energy Policy plan as being a priority.

So, what is their plan? I will try to be as neutral as possible and list (directly from their website) their Energy and Environmental initiatives:

McCAIN

ENERGY:

• Will Commit Our Country To Expanding Domestic Oil Exploration
• Promoting And Expanding The Use Of Our Domestic Supplies Of Natural Gas
• The Nation Cannot Reduce Its Dependency On Oil Unless We Change How We Power Our Transportation Sector
• Clean Car Challenge: $5,000 tax credit for each and every customer who buys a zero carbon emission car
• A $300 Million Prize To Improve Battery Technology
• Flex-Fuel Vehicles (FFVs): calls on automakers to make a more rapid and complete switch to FFVs (automakers have committed to make 50 percent of their cars FFVs by 2012)
• Alcohol-Based Fuels Hold Great Promise As Both An Alternative To Gasoline And As A Means of Expanding Consumers' Choices
• Today, Isolationist Tariffs And Wasteful Special Interest Subsidies Are Not Moving Us Toward An Energy Solution
• Will Effectively Enforce Existing CAFE Standards (CAFE standards - the mileage requirements that automobile manufacturers' cars must meet)
• The U.S. Must Become A Leader In A New International Green Economy. Green jobs and green technology will be vital to our economic future
• Will Commit $2 Billion Annually To Advancing Clean Coal Technologies
• Will Put His Administration On Track To Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 With The Ultimate Goal Of Eventually Constructing 100 New Plants
• Will Establish A Permanent Tax Credit Equal To 10 Percent Of Wages Spent On R&D
• Will Encourage The Market For Alternative, Low Carbon Fuels Such As Wind, Hydro And Solar Power
• Proposes A Cap-And-Trade System That Would Set Limits On Greenhouse Gas Emissions While Encouraging The Development Of Low-Cost Compliance Options
• Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets And Timetables:
  2012: To 2005 Levels (18% Above* 1990 Levels)
  2020: To 1990 Levels (15% Below 2005 Levels)
  2030: 22 Percent Below 1990 Levels (34% Below 2005 Levels)
  2050: 60% Below 1990 Levels (66% Below 2005 Levels)
• Will Make Greening The Federal Government A Priority Of His Administration
• Will Move The United States Toward Electricity Grid And Metering Improvements To Save Energy
• Believes We Must Understand The Role Speculation Is Playing In Our Soaring Energy Prices
• Does Not Support A Windfall Profits Tax. A windfall profits tax on the oil companies will ultimately result in increasing our dependence on foreign oil

CLIMATE CHANGE

• Climate Policy Should Be Built On Scientifically-Sound, Mandatory Emission Reduction Targets And Timetables
• Climate Policy Should Utilize A Market-Based Cap And Trade System
• Climate Policy Must Include Mechanisms To Minimize Costs And Work Effectively With Other Markets
• Climate Policy Must Spur The Development And Deployment Of Advanced Technology
• Climate Policy Must Facilitate International Efforts To Solve The Problem

OBAMA

SHORT TERM SOLUTIONS: IMMEDIATE RELIEF FROM PAIN AT THE PUMP

• Emergency Energy Rebate. Will require oil companies to take a reasonable share of their record‐breaking windfall profits and use it to provide direct relief worth $500 for an individual and $1,000 for a married couple
• Crack Down on Excessive Energy Speculation
• Swap Light and Heavy Crude, Release Oil from Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Cut Prices

MID TO LONGTERM SOLUTIONS: NEW ENERGY FOR AMERICA

• Tackle Climate Change
• Implement Cap and Trade Program to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions - 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050
• Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change
• Invest in Our Secure Energy Future and Create 5 Million New Jobs
1. Strategically invest $150 billion over 10 years to accelerate the commercialization of plug‐in hybrids, promote development of commercial scale renewable energy, encourage energy efficiency, invest in low emissions coal plants, advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, and begin transition to a new digital electricity grid
2. “Green Vet Initiative”: more of our veterans can enter the new energy economy
3. Convert our Manufacturing Centers into Clean Technology Leaders
4. Create New Job Training Programs for Clean Technologies
• Make our Cars, Trucks and SUV’s Fuel Efficient
• Increase Fuel Economy Standards: 4 percent per each year
• Invest in Developing Advanced Vehicles and Put 1 Million Plugin Electric Vehicles on the Road by 2015.
• Within one year of becoming President, the entire White House fleet will be converted to plug‐ins as security permits; and
• Half of all cars purchased by the federal government will be plug‐in hybrids or all‐electric by 2012
• Partner with Domestic Automakers: $4 billion retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for domestic auto plants
• Mandate All New Vehicles are Flexible Fuel Vehicles
• Develop the Next Generation of Sustainable Biofuels and Infrastructure: 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels by 2030
• Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: fuel suppliers in 2010 to begin reducing the carbon of their fuel by 5 percent within 5 years and 10 percent within 10 years
• Promote the Supply of Domestic Energy
• “Use it or Lose It” Approach to Existing Leases: Oil companies have access to 68 million acres of land, over 40 million offshore, which they are not drilling on
• Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas
• Bakken Shale in Montana and North Dakota which could have as much as 4 billion recoverable barrels of oil according to the U.S. Geological Survey
• Unconventional natural gas supplies in the Barnett Shale formation in Texas and the Fayetteville Shale in Arkansas
• National Petroleum Reserve‐Alaska (NPR‐A) which comprises 23.5 million acres of federal land set aside by President Harding to secure the nation's petroleum reserves for national security purposes
• Facilitate the construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline
• Getting More from our Existing Oil Fields: experts believe that up to 85 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil remains stranded in existing fields
• Diversify Our Energy Sources
• Require 10 Percent of Electricity to Come from Renewable Sources by 2012
• Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology
• Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy
• Commitment to Efficiency to Reduce Energy Use and Lower Costs
• Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source -Energy Efficiency: reduce electricity demand 15 percent from projected levels by 2020
• Set National Building Efficiency Goals: all new buildings carbon neutral, or produce zero emissions, by 2030
• Overhaul Federal Efficiency Standards
• Reduce Federal Energy Consumption: achieve a 15 percent reduction in federal energy consumption by 2015
• Flip Incentives to Energy Utilities: measures will benefit utilities for improving energy efficiency
• Invest in a Smart Grid
• Weatherize One Million Homes Annually
• Weatherize One Million Homes Annually

On a final note I would like to mention the smart effort that Pickens is doing by linking his plan to politics, by signing up people to create political pressure. Regardless of my liking or disliking the Pickens Plan, the idea deserves kudos (details here)

Until next week... SHALOM!

* Not a typo! It is what is written at the website

What is your plan?

The economy is going down the drains, oil prices are also coming down. Does this mean the end for alternative energy? Are people going to be so submerged in survival mode that they will forget what got them there in the first place? Perhaps.

I do believe in the next 5 years we will see fundamental changes in the way we live. I am not sure what those changes will be, I have a feeling the transition is going to be a painful one. The market values will shift from the more superfluous goods and services (i.e. electronic gadgets and fashion) to others more basic ones (i.e. food and energy).

So, if energy becomes a more precious good then we will certainly shift into renewable energy, right? Not so fast, there is a "Tipping Point" to make the shift from fossil fuels into alternative energy, and the odds are against us.

When resources are scarce it is more difficult to decide on a strategy that requires an up front payment even if this strategy is more convenient over time.

If you offer two plans for certain service: plan "A" consist of monthly payments of $10 (for one year total $120); under plan "B" you just make a single $102 payment at the beginning of the year (a 15% discount!). I am sure people with fewer resources will select the monthly plan more times than the "B" plan, simply because it is easier to deliver $10 each month that it is to come up with the full $102. Only if you have the $102 easily available and you are smart enough to calculate the 15% difference (which is more than what most investments return on capital in today's market!), then you will chose plan "B".

Alternative energy requires an up front "investment" to develop new technology, to create new infrastructure and to change certain patterns in the market and in consumer behavior. The current oil thirsty system needs no change in the short term, only when oil becomes scarce enough, then we shall see the high cost of staying in this path. Its like having plan "A" with the last month's payment at $200 (rather than $10) and no right to renew!

For the time being the oil barrel has dropped from the $140 level to the $60 level. Oil, as any other product, follows the laws of supply and demand (as demand dwindles, the price drops). What some people don't realize is that supply and demand work for infinite availability products (subject to cost of production), oil has a very clear limit (when the end of oil is near, even if demand is low, prices will soar). Another peculiarity about oil is that, as the price decreases, oil supply decreases as well. Some sources of oil are too expensive to operate at $50 a barrel. This works against the cause for alternatives, as the supply diminishes, new sources become cost effective and reduce the impact of the diminishing supply.

What shall we do (we = humanity)??. We should have a plan!

Only by having a plan we can counter the INERTIA of the masses (and right now the inertia points towards more oil dependency).

Mr. T. Boone Pickens has a plan (recently featured in CBS's "60 minutes"), to generate wind power and use natural gas for vehicles (for pros and cons on The Pickens Plan go to Wind Energy).

In Israel and now in Australia, Shai Agassi has a plan to deliver electric cars, coordinating between government, car manufacturers, battery manufacturers and creating a "plug in" infrastructure (for more on this go to The Electric Car).

My plan is to find investment opportunities in Greentech. Opportunities with the best technology, the best management and the best business plan I can find. And hope they will make it big and create a better environment and at the same time give me a hefty return on my investment.

What is your plan?!

Until next week, SHALOM!

My Greentech Questions

"I only know that I know nothing", Socrates.

This week I am exploring questions that I have about greentech. Some questions may have a simple answer and some may be just rhetorical questions. Perhaps by next week you (the reader) will provide some answers and shine some light into this darkness. So here it is:

When I heard the debate last week, as well as in previous debates, the subject about alternative energy was present. Both candidates agree that new sources of energy are needed (I don't want to start a political discussion, so let's focus on the big picture) with some differences here and there. Both candidates talk about Nuclear power, but NEITHER CANDIDATE ADDRESSES THE DANGERS of this kind of energy source.

It is my understanding that the biggest problem with Nuclear power is the use and disposal of the radioactive fuel. I have heard (and here is my first question) that nuclear plants use less than 5% of the radioactive material power, is this true? And then, we are left with highly dangerous waste that takes over 10,000 years to become safe? To make things more complicated I have also heard that if we increase the percentage of world power generated by nuclear plants we will have no space left to safely store this radioactive material, could this be?

Why is Belgium, a country that generates 54% of its electricity through Nuclear plants, trying to stop construction of new plants and setting additional tax to existing nuclear power generation. Belgium, as well as Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden have all pledged to phase out existing plants. Why?

I would very much like to know the answers to these questions before we embark on a journey that may lead us into a global disaster!

Let's forget about Nuclear power for a second, let’s focus on a wider subject. How are we going to find a way to generate energy without draining the resources that we have in Planet Earth and without polluting our environment?

I guess most of us agree that the current way we generate energy and dispose our waste is dangerous for our future (please note I said: "most of us". "Why is this so?" is a question I will not ask here, for now).

In order to search for an answer on energy efficiency we need to look at the laws of thermodynamics. The first law states that "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms". Therefore, we will be better off if we try to use energy that comes from outside our planet: Solar energy. Right?

Well Solar energy is the direct consequence of the power of the sun that enters the earth. But waves, wind and tides (I'm not sure about geothermal) are also partly or wholly a consequence of the sun's effect. So, if we choose wind over solar power, are we selecting an indirect source of power and therefore sacrificing efficiency?

In evaluating an energy source we need to look at two factors: (1) how much energy can we "capture"? And (2) How much energy are we going to waste in the conversion process to its "final destination". And finally compare these numbers to the associated costs in order to find the best solution.

(1) Energy "capture": Solar energy is hard to capture, current solar cells can only attain around 8% efficiency. Other cells are able to convert up to over 40% of the sun’s power, but the cost of the materials used in such cells is prohibitive. Never mind that solar cells depend on the exposure to the sun and therefore are useless at night or with minimum light conditions. Why can’t we have both efficiency and low cost? Is 40% the best we can do?

Wind power has a theoretical limit of 59%. This means that the best wind and the best turbine in the world can only obtain 59% of the energy contained in wind (which already is a factor of the energy coming from the sun!). Can we have wind as our main source of energy with a ceiling of 59% efficiency?

(2) Conversion process: It's not enough that solar cells are inefficient within themselves, the process to convert direct current (DC) obtained with the cells into alternative current (AC) requires inverters which eat up between 5 and 50% of the electricity generated. Wind has a similar problem; the rotation generated by the wind has to be converted into a faster rotation speed to match the frequency on the electricity in the grid. This conversion lowers the efficiency of the turbine. Can we find a system that minimizes the loss of power in the conversion process?

Cost: No alternative energy source up to date has an associated cost that can compete with fossil fuels. Right? These sources depend on government subsidies; the idea is to promote economies of scale until they become competitive. Is there ever going to come a day when alternative, sustainable energy is less expensive than coal?

Wind and sun are variable sources; storage needs to be added to the system to make it work. Supposedly one of the most efficient ways to store energy is by pumping water into a high level storage, and later using the water's falling energy to regain the stored energy (this system achieves about 75% efficiency). Can we use such a system in a large scale alternative power generator?

As for Wave and Tide power generation technologies we have yet a long way to go, those areas are far behind wind and solar. Are we doomed to use fossil fuels until they run out?

In the alternative fuel vehicle arena, the argument of many proponents includes the following statement: "We use less than 25% of the gas in the car to generate forward motion" (the rest of the fuel is spent on noise, electric gadgets, pollution, etc). Can this be?

If the efficiency of current vehicles is so low, how come we have not been able to create a more efficient car in a shorter timeframe?

Finally (I am running out of space), I have trouble understanding the logic behind Hydrogen. Why are some people proposing hydrogen as a fuel? Supposedly hydrogen is a great storage media for electricity. The simplified principle is as follows: add electricity to water and you get hydrogen; turn the system around and release the electricity and obtain water back. Well, using the second law of thermodynamics the amount of electricity released from the hydrogen can only be the as much as the electricity injected in the water. This is power storage not fuel!?

I know that many of you will disagree with some of the ideas explained above, please give me your point of view! I also know that some concepts are explained superfluously, unfortunately I have limited time for this blog, and if I get enough requests I may write a book in the future (just kidding!).

Before leaving, I have to announce this week’s big news: I am father of a baby girl, Dana! (my third child).

Until next week: SHALOM!