Nuclear energy stocks are publicly traded companies that develop, own, or manage nuclear power plants or the technology and equipment used in such plants.

This list was last updated on 2/10/2022.

If you know of any nuclear energy stock that is not listed here, but which should be, please let us know in the comments. Also for stocks in the list that you think should be removed.

The post List of Nuclear Energy Stocks appeared first on Alternative Energy Stocks.

This list was last updated on 4/27/2022.

ETFs are Exchange-listed funds which pool investor’s money for the purpose of making Alternative Energy investments. Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) track a specified Alternative Energy index. This list also includes closed-end mutual funds and other pooled investments which trade on exchanges.

ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES)
ASN Groenprojectenfonds (ASNGF.AS)
Bluefield Solar Income Fund (BSIF.L)
Defiance Next Gen H2 ETF (HDRO)
Evolve Funds Automobile Innovation Index ETF (CARS.TO)
First Trust Global Wind Energy Index (FAN)
First Trust Nasdaq Clean Edge Smart Grid Infrastructure Index Fund (GRID)
First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund  (QCLN)
Foresight Solar Fund Limited (FSFL.L)
Global X Lithium ETF (LIT)
Global X Uranium ETF (URA)
Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF (RNRG), (formerly YLCO)
Greencoat Renewables Fund (GRP.IR)
Greencoat UK Wind PLC (UKW.L)
Harvest Clean Energy ETF (HCLN.TO)
Invesco Global Clean Energy ETF (PBD)
Invesco MSCI Global Timber ETF (CUT)
Invesco Solar ETF (TAN)
Invesco Wilderhill Clean Energy (PBW)
iShares Global Timber & Forestry Index Fund (WOOD)
iShares Self-Driving EV and Tech ETF (IDRV)
iShares S&P Global Clean Energy Index ETF (ICLN)
iShares S&P Global Nuclear Energy Index (NUCL)
KraneShares Electric Vehicles and Future Mobility Index ETF (KARS)
KraneShares Global Carbon ETF (KRBN)
NextEnergy Solar Ord (NESF.L)
Pickens Morningstar® Renewable Energy Response ETF (RENW)
SPDR Kensho Clean Power ETF (XKCP)
The Renewables Infrastructure Group Limited (TRIG.L)
Triodos Groenfonds NV (TRIGF.AS)
VanEck Vectors Low Carbon Energy ETF (SMOG)
Van Eck Nuclear Energy ETF (NLR)
Van Eck Rare Earth/Strategic Metals ETF (REMX)

If you know of any alternative energy ETF or ETP that is not listed here, but which should be, please let us know in the comments.  Also for funds in the list that you think should be removed.

Thanks to Peter Smit for his extensive suggestions for updates to this list.

The post List of Alternative Energy and Clean Energy ETFs appeared first on Alternative Energy Stocks.

Jim Lane 

Good-bye ARPA-E, DOE, Loan Guarantee program, Energy Star, OPIC, USTDA, NEA, and the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program. Even Big Bird gets the guillotine.

In Washington, the White House released its budget requests for 2018, a high-level, 62-page overview of President Trump’s strategy for “Making America Great Again”.

Departmental impact

In order of percentage impact, the departments are as follows.

Defense: Up $52B or 8 percent
Veterans Affairs: Up $4.4B or 6 percent
 Homeland Security: Up $2.8B or 7 percent
Small Business Administration: Down $43M or 5 percent
Health & Human Services: Down $15.1B or 18 percent
State: Down $10.1B or 28 percent
Education: Down $9B or 13 percent
Housing & Urban Development: Down $6.2B or 13 percent
Energy: Down $5.6B or 6 percent
Agriculture: Down $4.7B or 21 percent
EPA: Down $2.6B or 31 percent
Labor: Down $2.5B or 21 percent
Transportation: Down $2.4B or 13 percent
Interior: Down $1.5B or 12 percent
Commerce: Down $1.5B or 16 percent
Justice: Down $1.1B or 4 percent
Treasury: Down $0.5B or 4 percent
NASA: Down $0.2B or 1 percent

Well-known programs slated for 100% funding cuts include:

the Chemical Safety Board
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
the Delta Regional Authority
the Inter-American Foundation
the U.S. Trade and Development Agency
the Legal Services Corporation
the National Endowment for the Arts
the National Endowment for the Humanities
the Overseas Private Investment Corporation
the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
discretionary activities of the Rural Business and Cooperative Service
Energy Star
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy,
the Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program
the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program

Highlight Impacts for Selected Departments

Department of Agriculture (USDA)

The Administration says: “The President’s 2018 Budget requests $17.9 billion for USDA, a $4.7 billion or 21 percent decrease from the 2017 annualized continuing resolution (CR) level (excluding funding for P.L. 480 Title II food aid which is reflected in the Department of State and USAID budget).”

• Reduces funding for lower priority activities in the National Forest System.
• Continues to support farmer-focused research and extension partnerships at land-grant universities and provides about $350 million for USDA’s agship competitive research program.
• Reduces funding for USDA’s statistical capabilities, while maintaining core Departmental analytical functions, such as the funding necessary to complete the Census of Agriculture.
• Eliminates the duplicative Water and Wastewater loan and grant program.
• Reduces staffing in USDA’s Service Center Agencies to…reflect reduced Rural Development workload, and encourage private sector conservation planning.
• Eliminates discretionary activities of the Rural Business and Cooperative Service, a savings of $95 million from the 2017 annualized CR level.

The Department of Energy

The Administration says: “The Budget for DOE…reflects an increased reliance on the private sector to fund later-stage research, development, and commercialization of energy technologies and focuses resources toward early-stage research and development. It emphasizes energy technologies best positioned to enable American energy independence and domestic job-growth in the near to mid-term.”

The President’s 2018 Budget requests $28.0 billion for DOE, a $1.7 billion or 5.6 percent decrease from the 2017 annualized CR level.

• Provides $120 million to restart licensing activities for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository and initiate a robust interim storage program.
Eliminates the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, the Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program, and the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program.
• Ensures the Office of Science continues to invest in the highest priority basic science and energy research and development as well as operation and maintenance of existing scientific facilities for the community.
• Focuses funding for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Office of Nuclear Energy, the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, and the Fossil Energy Research and Development program on limited, early-stage applied energy research and development activities where the Federal role is stronger.

EPA

The Administration says: “The budget for EPA reflects…President’s priority to ease the burden of unnecessary Federal regulations that impose significant costs for workers and consumers EPA would primarily support States and Tribes in their important role protecting air, land, and water in the 21st Century.”

The President’s 2018 Budget requests $5.7 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency, a savings of $2.6 billion, or 31 percent, from the 2017 annualized CR level.

The President’s 2018 Budget:

• Discontinues funding for the Clean Power Plan, international climate change programs, climate change research and partnership programs, and related effortssaving over $100 million for the American taxpayer compared to 2017 annualized CR levels. Consistent with the President’s America First Energy Plan, the Budget reorients EPA’s air program to protect the air we breathe without unduly burdening the American economy.
• Avoids duplication by concentrating EPA’s enforcement of environmental protection violations on programs that are not delegated to States, while providing oversight to maintain consistency and assistance across State, local, and tribal programs.
• Eliminates more than 50 EPA programs, saving an additional $347 million compared to the 2017 annualized CR level. Lower priority and poorly performing programs and grants are not funded…examples of eliminations in addition to those previously mentioned include: Energy Star; Targeted Airshed Grants; the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program; and infrastructure assistance to Alaska Native Villages and the Mexico Border.

Department of Transportation

The Administration says: “The Budget reques
t reflects a streamlined DOT that is focused on performing vital Federal safety oversight functions and investing in nationally and regionally significant transportation infrastructure projects.”

The President’s 2018 Budget requests $16.2 billion for DOT’s discretionary budget, a $2.4 billion or 13 percent decrease from the 2017 annualized CR level.

Digest analysis and comment

6 points to absorb for now.

1. It’s a budget request, not an appropriation. All of this has to go through the sausage-making process in the House and Senate.

2. It’s in many ways a War Budget. Not so much a war on big government as much as a War Budget in the form of sharply increased defense-related and security-related spending. Overall, this is a shift in government priority, not a shift towards smaller government. Overall discretionary (excluding contingency funds) is reduced by $1 billion, out of a $4 trillion US budget. The cut is symbolic while the shift towards Defense and Homeland Security is real.

3. The focus is shifting away from the, expensive, risky, Murky Middle of “bringing technologies from the lab to ready-for-commercialization”. Instead, the budget emphasizes “energy technologies best positioned to enable American energy independence and domestic job-growth in the near to mid-term” while at the same time shifting spending “toward early-stage research and development”.

If you’ve wondered how the government will foster technologies that are near-term and mid-term while retreating away from commercialization activities in favor of a retreat into basic R&D, you’ve raised a good question. If you say to yourself that “the commercialization program was built because private industry, in the past, has repeatedly not picked up the slack”, you’ve raised a good point.

4. There’s a lot of “we’re still going to do it” combined with “someone else is going to pay for it” in Trumpenomics. The Mexican Wall is a prime example “they’ll pay, you’ll see” goes the refrain. So we see quite a bit of emphasis on energy independence and advanced fleet, but corporations will pay for everything beyond early-stage R&D. And we see a lot of “the States and Tribes’ll do it” on protecting the environment. Consider it a shift in the Glorious Burden, not a big change in what the goals and priorities are.

5. EPA enforcement or responsiveness on anything is likely to be greatly affected.

6. A lot of Goodbye. In the sector of the advanced bioeconomy, think Energy Star, ARPA-E, the DOE Loan Guarantee program, and the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program.

What does it mean?

1. Big companies rock. Those that have the financial resources to absorb a bigger commercialization effort will face less competition, that’s for sure from entities that have relied on loan guarantees.

2. For the advanced bioeconomy, as we have pointed out before, the Obama Administration was so profoundly shifted towards the power sector and electric cars that the cuts will be felt by fuels and chemicals perhaps less than any other sector in clean tech. The Loan Guarantee and ARPA-E programs were massively tilted towards power and electrics far exceeding the share of market held by the power sector and that goes for the Advanced vehicle program, too.

3. I wouldn’t bet on a gigantic appetite for continuing the $7500 tax credit for buying an electric vehicle, under this Administration. That’s tax policy rather than budget, but tax reform is on the table this year in DC too, and if the Administration is willing to gut everything else related the deployment of electrics, they’re unlikely to be in love with a market-distorting and huge tax credit.

Which might, in the end, put more emphasis back onto renewable fuels as an affordable, low-cost, pro-American, environmentally-friendly technology set. Not to mention that renewable chemicals got so little love that they literally had almost nothing to lose.

The Bottom Line

Bad news for many, but look on the bright side: perversely, could be great times for renewable fuels and chems it’s a bit of a playing field leveler for the liquid cleantech sector that’s been the Cinderella under Obama (and I mean the early scenes when Cinderella is progressively reduced from daughter to wretch).

And for those looking for real estate in DC, prices should be dropping soon.

Jim Lane is editor and publisher  of Biofuels Digest where this article was originally published. Biofuels Digest is the most widely read  Biofuels daily read by 14,000+ organizations. Subscribe here.

The post Trump to Health, Education, Small Business, and the Environment: You’re Fired! appeared first on Alternative Energy Stocks.

Jim Lane

Peter Brown of FFA Fuels, promotes his company these days with the pithy slogan, “Fuels from the Worst Waste Around.”

Which of course raises the legitimate question, what is the worst waste, and can we find a use for it?

Discussions of worst waste will usually focus on the obvious say, landfill or the odious say, medical or nuclear waste. Toxicity and longevity are typical concerns, and that’s one of the reasons why nuclear energy remains controversial to this day.

No Waste in Nature

As LanzaTech’s Jennifer Holmgren observed in a recent article by Peter Forbes in Aeon:

“Carbon is precious. This means we must learn to recycle it. If you can extend its life by reusing it in a fuel, you will keep that equivalent amount of fossil fuel in the ground. There should be no waste. There is no waste in nature.’

Which introduces a new idea into the discussion of waste.

By wasting carbon as skyfill, says Holmgren blasting it into the atmosphere after one use, instead of seeking to recycle we condemn ourselves to extracting fresh supplies of carbon from their subterranean repositories.

It’s a one-and-done approach to carbon that has poured hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 into our atmosphere, and according to a scientific plurality, triggered a greenhouse climate effect that threatens our way of life.

One and done

Let’s apply the one-and-done habit to something different, but equally pervasive: housing. We all need energy and we all need shelter.

One and done housing, absurd? Not entirely. Roman troops used to build a wooden fort after every day of marching on the imperial frontiers, and abandon their lodgings in the morning as they set off for their next day’s destination. One and done, that was the legion’s way.

Today, if we threw away a house after every use, we’d run out of building materials in practically no time at all, landfills would be overflowing with waste, and the economy would be wrecked trying to handle all the new construction.

Yet, that’s our energy system, in a nutshell, aside from the small amount of production coming from renewables. We extract carbon from the ground, combust it, and release carbon into the atmosphere as skyfill. One and done.

Because it’s invisible and, more importantly, because it’s up there instead of all around us we tolerate skyfill. “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind” as the prophet Hosea observed almost 3,000 years ago.

In almost no other major aspect of our lives do we tolerate one-and-done we wash the clothes and dishes, lock and insure the house, clean the carpet and floors, polish the shoes, mulch the lawn clippings, serve leftovers, maintain the car, and have second dates and even move on to marriages with the objects of our desire. It is our nature to conserve resources.

But with plastics, and fuels, we have become invading Roman soldiers, one and done. Wham-bam-thank-you-ma’am.

Cheaper at the pump

We are told that the reason that this economic system endures, of energy use and carbon spewing, is that it is the most economic of all. That is to say, one-and-done, carbon-extraction, petroleum-based fuels are cheaper at the pump than alternatives.

To the extent that it is always more economically efficient to withdraw money from the bank than to earn a living and add value within the economy, that’s true.

So, why not simply squander the resources of a nation in an orgy of ATM withdrawals? Why not just live on our national savings, in all things and not just energy, until the savings run out? Is it not more economically efficient, is it not cheaper to do so, until the resource runs out and there’s hell to pay?

Sure it is.

But what’s the point of building a civilization on sand, even if it is valuable tar sand?

Resources that are not replenished will fall away eventually, and societies that have lost the habit of sustainable production will fall away even quicker than the resources beneath their feet. The orgy of life on the credit card is a fictitious life with a ruinous end even if what is being spent on the credit card is carbon and not money. The money in the bank must eventually be replenished, or not used.

In Christian theology, of course, we’re spending not our own resources but the Almighty’s, as God pointed out via Leviticus 25: “the land is mine, for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.”

So, the worst waste?

Is the worst waste actually the most toxic and odious waste, like nuclear?

Or, rather, the one that tempts us to base our civilization on an energy version of a Ponzi scheme?

So, what’s the remedy to wanton waste and skyfill? Technologies that pick up waste carbon preferably at the point of emission, before the carbon is dissipated into the atmosphere and ruinously expensive to recover. Waste carbon-gulping technologies from the likes of LanzaTech, Liquid Light, and algae project developers such as Sapphire Energy, Cellana and Heliae.

Carbon price and climate change cost

But here’s the problem. Skyfill is priced at ruinously low levels by markets.

Skyfill is dangerous to our economy and way of life, yet rescuers of industrial gases are expected to acquire unprocessed gas at costs between zero and $30 per ton. I have seen many thrillers but I have never seen the rescued parties charge for the privilege of saving them.

The Brookings Institute last year estimated that global GDP would be reduced by as much as 20 percent using business-as-usual approaches to carbon. That’s $15 trillion per year in today’s dollars. It’s worth trillions to prevent that. Yet, markets are aghast at the prospect of pitiful carbon prices.

Let’s think differently

We might start here: the duty to take reasonable care. That was something I learned as a young law student, sent to study up on negligence and the case of Donoghue v Stevenson.

In that decision, Lord Atkin wrote:

“You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be – persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.”

The reasonable person thus makes an appearance.

He is distinct from the “average man” or “the man in the street” and distinct, then, from the market itself. In the realm of negligence, we are bound by the duty to take care, even though in the realm of markets that is not always the case.

The power to ruin

In a market, I might trade you shares of a stock I think is overpriced, regardless of the ruin it might bring to you. So long as I do not have access to inside information, it means nothing to markets that you are exposed to loss. I have no market duty to take reasonable care to protect you from economic harm when I unload my shares to you.

In a market, an organization might take on a risky investment because it understands that it is “too big to fail” and that gains will be privatized but losses socialized, through bail-outs. That’s moral hazard.

Moral hazard what’s that again?

It’s been defined as “a situation in which one party gets involved in a risky event knowing that it is protected against the risk and the other party will incur the cost.”

Is that not a perfectly good way to look at the carbon debacle as a case in moral hazard? Since most of us, the average of us, know that excessive use of carbon is a risky event that other parties (for
example, fish, or future generations) and not us, will pay the price for.

So, we are using the concept of markets to govern behaviors that might better be governed by the concept of the duty of care, and the higher standard expected of the reasonable person. The ‘average man’ of the markets might risk moral hazard, but the reasonable person cannot.

Of the reasonable person, Percy Henry Winfield wrote:

“He will not anticipate folly in all its forms but he never puts out of consideration the teachings of experience and so will guard against negligence of others when experience shows such negligence to be common. He is a reasonable man but not a perfect citizen, nor a “paragon of circumspection.”

We have wasted the concept of the reasonable person, and the duty to take care when it comes to the hazards posed by carbon. We have left carbon to the market, when we have taken so many things outside of the market that you could hardly write them all down.

We have made public drunkenness an offense despite the fair market transaction that took place between the buyer and seller of the alcohol that produced the condition. It is wrong to impose drunkenness or loutish behavior on society, despite the fact that the transaction that produced the condition was legal and took place at an agreed market price. The publican gets money, the customer gets a beverage, but society gets an intolerable disturbance.

The worst waste, then perhaps we might well discover it to be a “great and ready remedy for a great societal ill, that we have refused to use”.

Why? A misplaced faith in the power of markets.

Markets are filled with items for sale that shouldn’t be. Sex, drugs, slaves, laundered currency, odious weapons, and stolen goods to name a few. But they are black markets, because they are banned trades. Not because markets do not function but because they fail to afford the reasonable protection to society that the reasonable person has a duty to provide. Black markets fill our sewers with their unintended consequences and their moral hazard.

There’s no need to ban the trade in carbon, any more than banning the trade in alcohol. But unreasonable use, that is something to look at which markets never will.

Carbon use ought to be measured according to the standard of the reasonable person, rather than the person of the market whose only defense of the sale is that there was a buyer at the price.

We might find that the reasonable person takes better account of the problem of skyfill and sees a duty to take care by reducing carbon spewing through re-use. We might also find that pricing energy only because of the work that it does is like tolerating the drunken man howling at the top of his lungs in the middle of the night, on the theory that he should be freely allowed to enjoy his legally-bought goods in his own way.

His right to a good time, after paying a market price, is not the only priority for a society made up of reasonable people who would like to get some sleep.

Jim Lane is editor and publisher  of Biofuels Digest where this article was originally published. Biofuels Digest is the most widely read  Biofuels daily read by 14,000+ organizations. Subscribe here.

The post The Worst Waste appeared first on Alternative Energy Stocks.

by Debra Fiakas CFA

New Jersey-based NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG:  NYSE)  NRG serves about 2.8 million customers in the northeastern U.S. with electricity generated from a mix of conventional and renewable power sources  – 95 fossil fuel and nuclear power plants, 14 utility-scale solar power plants, and 35 wind farms.  It has been good business for NRG, raking in $16.2 billion in total sales in the twelve months ending March 2015.  NRG converted $1.4 billion of those sales to operating cash.  That helps support a dividend payout policy that will put $0.58 per share in holders’ pockets next year.

NRG wants to be more than the ordinary electric utility, powering lights and appliances.  The company is trying to serve electric vehicle owners with its EVgo in-home charging units.  NRG has also set up a network of stations for away-from-home charging called EVgo Freedom Stations.  The company claims ‘hundreds” of stations and that it “continues to expand nationally.”  Some are located along major highways, but most are in parking lots adjacent to major retailers.

To establish its footprint in the electric vehicle charging market, NRG is offering free charges at its Freedom Stations to owners of Nissan LEAF electric cars.  The company also provides a selection of charging plans to win loyalty from electric car owners.  Its pitch for in-home charging units is pinned to a promise of no up-front costs and payment plan choices to fit the car owner’s budget.

For conservative investors who cannot stomach the risks inherent in the small, early-stage car charging companies described in the last post, NRG presents an interesting alternative.  Of course, a stake in NRG is really a play on electricity generation and distribution and not a pure play on electric car charging.  However, as garages become increasingly homes to electric vehicles, the growth opportunity presented to electric utilities cannot be overlooked.  With the EVgo brand, NRG seems to have a head start in capturing the electric car charging opportunity.

NRG will not be a cheap play at least in terms of price-to-earnings multiples.  The stock is currently trading at 65.4 times the consensus estimate for 2016.  However, there appears to be quite a bit of noise in EPS.  Thus multiples of assets or cash earnings might be more helpful.  It is also worthwhile noting that NRG has been in a slump in recent weeks and the stock looks enticingly oversold near its 52-week low.

Debra Fiakas is the Managing Director of Crystal Equity Research, an alternative research resource on small capitalization companies in selected industries.

Neither the author of the Small Cap Strategist web log, Crystal Equity Research nor its affiliates have a beneficial interest in the companies mentioned herein.

The post NRG Wants To Charge Your Car appeared first on Alternative Energy Stocks.

By Jeff Siegel

Tonight, I will welcome in the New Year with family.

We’ll feast on cured meats, pickled vegetables, and lamb neck stew.

We’ll sip an old fashioned or two with apple and sage, share some laughs, and maybe even shed a few tears as we remember those we lost in 2014.

When the ball drops, we’ll hug, kiss, and cheer on all that waits to be discovered in 2015.

There will be good and there will be bad, but I suppose it’s the uncertainty of it all that makes life worth living.

Don’t Fear the Uncertain

It was Joseph Campbell who said, “The cave you fear to enter holds the treasure you seek.”

I’ve always loved that quote.

Whenever I need a little push before venturing off on a new path, I remind myself of that quote. And I wanted to share it with you today because as we head in to 2015, it seems as if fear is weighing on our collective shoulders more than ever.

This is a shame, since we really don’t know how 2015 will unfold. And until something horrible actually happens, it’s really nothing more than an illusion.

Of course, it’s easy to say something like this, but it doesn’t change the fact that there are a lot of horrible things that could happen this year.

War, terrorism, plagues, environmental catastrophes, starvation you name it. All of these threats are very real and cannot be ignored.

But we can’t live our lives fearful of the outcome. Because if we do, we can’t live. And if we can’t live, we can’t prosper.

A Profitable Year

In 2015, bad things will happen.

I suspect the tension between Russia and the U.S. will increase. The death toll from all these wars in the Middle East will rise. Rights will be trampled, waters will be poisoned, and taxpayers will continue to be pilfered like newlyweds at a timeshare presentation in Vegas.

But there are also a lot of great things that’ll happen this year especially for energy investors.

With the gutting of oil prices, the laggards in the oil and gas production space are going to go belly-up, and the small fish are going to get gobbled up by the sharks. This will shake out the losers and make it much easier for us to identify the winners over the long term.

New technological developments are going to push solar and electric car batteries to places we’ve never dreamed.

Solar installation costs will continue to fall dramatically, making it even more affordable for consumers  and more lucrative for solar companies like SolarCity (NASDAQ: SCTY), Vivint Solar (NYSE: VSLR), and SunEdison (NYSE: SUNE).

Cost reductions for electric car batteries will continue, while the quality of those batteries will increase. In fact, Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) just recently announced a new upgrade for its Roadster that will push its all-electric range to 400 miles.

Folks, three years ago, such a thing would’ve been little more than a pipe dream. Yet it’s available right now.

Internationally, nuclear power will continue to be developed and expanded, particularly in China, India, and the Middle East. It’s going to be a great year for uranium!

So enjoy your last remaining hours of 2014. Drink some champagne, eat good food, and spend time with your family and friends. But most importantly, get ready…

Because 2015 is going to be busy, loud, and very, very profitable.

To a new way of life and a new generation of wealth…

Jeff Siegel is Editor of Energy and Capital, where this article was first published.

The post Energy Investing: What To Expect In 2015 appeared first on Alternative Energy Stocks.

By Jeff Siegel

Oh my God! Oh my God!

Saudi Arabia cut oil prices and crude fell all the way to $75.84 today.

Sell it, dump it, run for the hills!

How far will it go? No one knows. But hold on to your asses, because things are going to get crazy!

We’re awash in oil, demand is waning, the Saudi plan to wipe out the U.S. shale market is underway.

Gas prices will fall back to $2.00 a gallon, everyone will be happy, gas-guzzlers will make a comeback, and electric cars are dead in the water. Take that you stupid treehuggers!

Saudi Supply

As you know, I hate low oil prices.

Low oil prices equate to lower gasoline prices. Lower gasoline prices chip away at the economic case for owning an electric car. As it is, that case is still a bit flimsy and will remain that way for a few more years until the Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) gigafactory starts pumping out cheaper batteries.

That being said, low oil prices are not a death sentence for electric cars – despite a lot of wishful thinking from those who have cursed Elon Musk since proving to the world that an electric car can be more than a glorified golf cart.

First, consider that the Saudis cannot shoulder price cuts for an extended period of time.

Saudi Arabia has its own economic issues to deal with, including some pretty burdensome unemployment rates. Back in 2012, King Abdullah actually announced a $130 billion plan to create jobs, build subsidized housing and support the religious establishment that backed the ban on domestic protests.

Some have suggested this outflow of capital was used as a way to maintain the status quo during the Arab Spring. I don’t know whether or not that’s true, but the Saudi economy is an oil economy. And while the Saudis are competing against the U.S. shale revolution, they must also balance those efforts with their plan to use less of their fossil fuel resources for their own consumption so they can sell them abroad at higher prices.

This is why we’ve seen such a big push for nuclear and solar power development in Saudi Arabia.

In any event, don’t count on the Saudis for a long-term supply of cheap oil.

Supply and Demand

Second, consider demand.

Demand is falling, and will likely continue to fall for some time. The global economy is not rebounding as fast as some claim, and increases in fuel economy for U.S. cars and trucks are having a small, but noticeable impact.

That being said, in the absence of another global economic meltdown (which isn’t out of the question), I suspect demand will pick up steam again in a few more years.

Above $70

Even if demand does remain stagnant, most shale producers can’t frack for less than $70 a barrel. Because the U.S. economy is so directly tied to the price of oil, and because the U.S. government is so reliant upon royalties from oil production, I find it hard to believe that the state won’t devise a plan to manipulate the price of oil in an effort to keep it above $70.

Of course, I don’t have a crystal ball. And maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I’m just full of crap and I’m doing little more than picking at straws here. But for the sake of electric vehicle adoption, I’m not even so sure cheap oil even matters.

Perhaps it does more for the less expensive electric vehicle models, like the Nissan LEAF for instance. Which, incidentally just broke its own record for most electric cars sold in the U.S. in a single year. To date, Nissan has sold more than 66,500 LEAFs in the United States.

But for a company like Tesla, it’s not entirely relevant.

Folks who can shell out $85,000 for a Tesla Model S don’t tend to be the types who worry about the price of gas. These are innovators and early adopters. They chest pound over access to new technologies and love nothing more than to show off their shiny new toys.

You also have environmentalists who will happily forgo cable or financial security in exchange for an emissions-free vehicle.

Point is, Tesla is at no risk of being sideswiped by cheap oil. The company is a beast, and even if it craps the bed on Q3 earnings tomorrow, it’s not going away. Tesla is here to stay. It’s going to continue to disrupt the hell of the auto market, and no amount of Saudi influence, state manipulation or demand destruction in the oil space will change that.

Jeff Siegel is Editor of Energy and Capital, where this article was first published.

The post Will Falling Oil Prices Destroy Tesla? appeared first on Alternative Energy Stocks.

Doug Young

In a move that should surprise no one, the US has announced it will levy new punitive tariffs on China-made solar panels to close a loophole from an earlier ruling. This move won’t help anyone and could seriously stifle the industry’s development just as it starts to emerge from a prolonged downturn. It also looks worrisome from a broader perspective for Chinese panel makers, since signs are emerging that their products could also be shunned in Japan and India, 2 of the world’s other promising emerging markets for solar power plant construction.

I’ll return to the Japan and India angle shortly, but let’s start with the latest news that comes in the form of a new ruling by the US International Trade Commission (ITC). (English article) A panel recommended earlier this year that the ITC should levy anti-dumping tariffs against Chinese solar panels that were made with cells produced outside the country in places like Taiwan. Such cells are the main component used to make finished solar panels.

The ITC had ruled in 2012 that Chinese solar panels received unfair government support through policies like cheap loans from state-run banks and export rebates, and imposed anti-dumping tariffs against the products. But the Chinese manufacturers used a loophole to skirt the punitive tariffs, which didn’t apply to panels that were made using solar cells manufactured in other countries. Now the ITC is moving to formally close that loophole with this latest ruling.

Under the new preliminary ruling, the US Commerce Department has recommended preliminary duties of up to 35.21 percent on Chinese-made panels that had avoided the punitive tariffs through the loophole. Some duties are a bit lower, with one report pointing out that panels from Trina Solar (NYSE: TSL) will be subject to punitive tariffs of 18.56 percent. Actual amounts could differ slightly, but I do expect the tariffs will get finalized later this year and deal a new blow to the Chinese panel makers.

We’ll probably see a flood of disappointed statements from the Chinese panel makers soon, and Germany’s SolarWorld (SRWRF), which has initiated most of the complaints, was quick to issue its own praise for the latest decision. (company announcement) There’s still time for the 2 sides to negotiate a settlement before the tariffs are finalized, which is what happened with a similar complaint in Europe last year. But based on the recent climate of hostilities between the US and China, I doubt we’ll see such conciliatory actions take place.

This latest US move, while quite expected, is casting yet another shadow over solar panel makers just as it appeared the sector’s woes from a recent supply glut were in the past. India announced late last month it would levy anti-dumping tariffs against Chinese and US solar panels, in what looks like a highly protectionist move to promote its small homegrown industry. (previous post)

Meantime, I’m hearing that Japanese banks are making similarly protectionist noises by refusing to finance any new solar power projects in Japan unless they use panels made by local companies. That’s certainly not a positive sign, since Japan is quickly emerging as one of the world’s biggest hot spots for new solar plant production as the country seeks to diversify from its previous heavy reliance on nuclear power.

At the end of the day, all of these protectionist measure will slow development of the global solar sector. US and European companies should enjoy relatively free access to each others’ markets, and Chinese and Japanese companies will inevitably dominate solar power building in their respective home markets. But lack of competition means prices will probably remain artificially high in many of those markets, making construction of new plants less commercially attractive than it would be under a more competitive environment.

Bottom line: The latest US anti-dumping ruling against Chinese solar panels is the latest sign of a rapidly emerging protectionist mentality in the sector, which will keep prices artificially high and stifle development.

Doug Young has lived and worked in China for 15 years, much of that as a journalist for Reuters writing about Chinese companies. He currently lives in Shanghai where he teaches financial journalism at Fudan University. He writes daily on his blog, Young´s China Business Blog, commenting on the latest developments at Chinese companies listed in the US, China and Hong Kong. He is also author of a new book about the media in China, The Party Line: How The Media Dictates Public Opinion in Modern China.

The post US Closes Solar Tariff Loophole appeared first on Alternative Energy Stocks.

by Debra Fiakas CFA

March 31st marked the end of fiscal year 2014 for Orion Energy Systems (OESX: Nasdaq), a provider of energy-saving lighting systems.  The half dozen or so analysts who follow the company on a regular basis think the company will be able to report about the same level of sales as the same quarter last year, but will actually suffer a penny loss instead of making a profit as they did last year.  If they are right it will be a setback for Orion, which higher sales this year than last and has so far had a small profit. 

Orion Energy Systems – Exterior Lighting

That Orion’s prospects are improving should be no surprise.  The benefits of efficiency measures to reduce energy costs are just recently beginning to gain respectability.  The Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) reports that in 2012 alone efficiency programs sponsored by electric utilities in the U.S. saved enough power to serve over 12 million homes for one year  –  126 TWh.  The data was enough to help CEE analysts to conclude that energy efficiency is the most important source of clean, cheap energy because utilities do not need to generate as much power if their customers require less electricity.  A reported from the Natural Resources Defense Council says energy efficiency has outperformed all other energy resources combined, including the various fossil fuels and nuclear power.

The elevation of energy efficiency on par with energy sources should support higher valuation multiples for energy efficiency solution providers, especially those that have honed a profitable operating structure.  Orion has managed to maintain its gross profit margin over 30% although its profits have slipped from a peak of 33.7% in 2011.  Orion has also struggled to keep revenue on a consistent upward march.  Sales in the twelve months ending December 2013, were $98.2 million, back up to the company’s record revenue level of $100.6 million recorded in 2012.

However, analysts expect only $98.3 million in the fiscal year .  It is not until next year that the consensus reflects a decisive acceleration in sales activity  –  the kind that generates profits.  The consensus estimate for fiscal year 2015 that begins today is $0.12 in earning per share on $108.8 million in total sales.

Comparisons of Orion’s earnings in the coming quarters should be favorable.  That could keep the stock on an upward trajectory similar to the ramp that can be seen in the OESX historic stock price chart.  A review of trading patterns during the last two months suggests that the stock is may be poised to take a bit of a breather in the near term.  That would provide an interesting opportunity to take a long position in a company that has established a foothold in the right industry at the right time.   

Debra Fiakas is the Managing Director of Crystal Equity Research, an alternative research resource on small capitalization companies in selected industries.

Neither the author of the Small Cap Strategist web log, Crystal Equity Research nor its affiliates have a beneficial interest in the companies mentioned herein.

The post Orion Energy Systems: Right Industry, Right Time appeared first on Alternative Energy Stocks.

by Debra Fiakas CFA

In the earlier post on Brightsource Energy and its Ivanpah solar thermal power plant in California cited costs for the plant as well as costs for nuclear and conventional power sources.  A reader pointed out a discrepancy in those figures and it prompted me to look more closely at various sources and citations on power plant costs.  Even within one design or fuel category, costs for power plants are exceptionally site specific.  In particular variance can occur in labor, site preparation, and interconnection requirements.  Certain material and equipment costs are more volatile than others.  For example, high temperature- high-pressure pipe, electrical transformers and copper wire are high in demand in the oil and gas market as well as the power market.  When both industries are busy, costs increase dramatically.  So investors should expect quite a bit of variance across power sources and from region to region.

It is also easy to get tripped up in the power industry vernacular.  (This is where the cart left the path in the earlier article.)  Back in the 1700s when the steam engine was being perfected a smart Scotsman named Watt came up with a measure of energy conversion.  The measure became standard and of course it had to be named after him.

Yet, one Watt is not enough. In very large power complexes, it becomes unwieldy to discuss power generation in terms of Watts.   Here the Watt siblings come in handy to keep the digits at a reasonable number.  You can choose Kilo’s or Mega’s or Giga’s.  If a power plant has a capacity to produce 2,000,000,000 Watts and you want to shed all those zeros, you can choose among “2.0 billion watts” or “2,000 Megawatts” or “2.0 Gigawatts.” 

 
Watts are standard, but the way we talk and write about them is not.  The U.S. Energy Information Administration is among the most cited sources for Capital Cost Estimates for Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants.  This is probably because they have a fairly detailed report by that name.  The report was most recently updated in April 2013 and expresses all costs per kilowatt.  For example, the nuclear power plant cost is listed in the EIA report at US$5,533 per kilowatt.

The Nuclear Energy Agency also provides information on nuclear power plant construction costs, but uses megawatts as their basis.   The NEA says “a typical cost for construction of a Generation III reactor between 1400 – 1800 MW in OECD countries might be in the region of USD 5 – 6 billion.”

Comparing the two sources requires some math.  First, let’s get the average for that range of sizes and costs provided by the NEA.

 
Now we need to either re-express the EIA numbers in Megawatts or the NEA numbers in Kilowatts to compare the two sets of numbers.

That was exhausting.  In the end, the two are so far apart as to bring into question the value of the cost benchmarks in the first place, from either source.  Did I mention regional variances and how power generation costs can be quite site specific?  It is also helpful to know that the EIA has recently updated it benchmark power plant costs, but the NEA’s numbers appear to be a bit older.

The EIA report on power plants cites costs for a collection of conventional fossil fuel plants.  Natural gas power plants are among the fossil fuel-type power sources.  The average is US$1,137 per kilowatt with a range of US$676 per kilowatt for an advanced conventional combustion turbine to US$2,095 per kilowatt for a conventional combustion plant outfitted with carbon capture technology.  If fuel cells using natural gas were also included in this category, it would hold the dubious record as the most expensive at US$7,108 per kilowatt.

The EIA report also indicates a cost of US$5,067 per kilowatt for solar thermal power which we could have compared to our source for the cost of BrightSource’s Ivanpah power plant.  It would have been a tip-off that the cost of US$5,500 per megawatt cited in the article on Brightsource was “off.”  The Ivanpah facility has a capacity of 377 Megawatts and a cost of US$2.2 billion. That is a cost of US$5.8 million per megawatt or US$5,836 per kilowatt (since 1.0 Megwatt = 1,000 Kilowatts).  Indeed, it appears there could be more to the discrepancy.  The Brightsource website indicates the plant has a 377 megawatt capacity, but planned capacity is apparently 392 megawatts.  Using 392 megawatts leads to a lower cost figure of US$5.5 million per megawatt.

For investors, the comparison of costs from one plant to another or even across categories has some informative value.  Yet there are limitations.  A resource poor region might find the construction of a nuclear facility compelling even if the cost per kilowatt is high in comparison to other energy sources.  It is all relative.  What is important for investors is whether future cash flows from the sale of electricity will be sufficient to allow investors to receive a return on their investment.

Debra Fiakas is the Managing Director of Crystal Equity Research, an alternative research resource on small capitalization companies in selected industries.

Neither the author of the Small Cap Strategist web log, Crystal Equity Research nor its affiliates have a beneficial interest in the companies mentioned herein.

The post Watt’s Watt? appeared first on Alternative Energy Stocks.