June 30, 2009 at 11:20 pm
· Filed under AES, Energy efficiency, Investing information, electric grid, investing
Predicting market moves is notoriouslly difficult, but I’m feeling pretty good about my recent efforts.
On October 11, 2008, I stoped being a permabear and said, “the market as a whole now seems to me to be fairly valued.” The S&P 500 closed the previous Friday just below 900; today it closed at 919.32. In the fear that abounded last October, it was a hard call to be even that bullish, bit it seems to have worked out.
On June 2, I said we were near a market peak/ The S&P 500 closed that day at 944.74, and is currently down 3% almost a month later, having only bearly exceeded that number by a fraction of a percent.
Since I’m currently short-term bearish, I’ve started a series of articles not to by now, but to buy when a market decline puts them back on sale. Here are may clean enrgy shopping list articles so far:
Transmission stocks
Energy Efficiency Stocks
Clean Transport Stocks
Why market timing makes sense
Permalink
March 29, 2009 at 9:18 pm
· Filed under Energy efficiency
Chevron’s willyoujoinus campaign rubs me the wrong way. What is the message here?
- I will use less energy
- I will bike to work 3 days a year.
- I will leave the car at home more.
- I will use solar power.
- I will reuse things more.
To me, this seems to be saying:
- Taking small steps is enough (3 days a year!!!?)
- Sacrifice is required (leave the car at home, use less energy, spend a lot on solar panels.)
These types of messages undermine energy efficiency. There are many ways to save energy which don’t involve inconvenience, and help your bottom line. For instance, you can now buy a power strip for your TV or computer which switches off all the peripherals when the main electronic device is switched off. If you just set it up to turn off your VCR and DVD players when the TV is off, that will probably be a savings of 50 watts. If the TV is off 18 hours a day vor a year, that’s over 330 kW, or a savings of about $60 in the Northeast, $47 in California, or $33 in Colorado… but the powestrips cost only $25-$40, depending on which version you get… more than a 100% return in one year.
Saving energy does not need to be about sacrifice. I ride the bus out of choice… I’m less likely to get in an accident, and I can get work or reading done in the process. One day they were doing maintenance on the standard diesel that serves my route, and instead the bus was one of the newer hybrids. The ride was much smoother… so RTD saving energy by using a hybrid not only saved the transit district money, it made the passengers more comfortable.
Energy Efficiency is a win-win. When Chevron equates it to sacrifice, everyone loses.
Permalink
March 12, 2009 at 1:53 pm
· Filed under Colorado, Electric Regulation, Energy efficiency, Events, Geothermal energy, Investing information, PV, Politics, Renewable Energy, electric grid, energy storage, investing, photovoltaics ·Tagged American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA, Colorado
Permalink
February 17, 2009 at 11:05 pm
· Filed under Peak Oil
Permalink
January 10, 2009 at 11:38 pm
· Filed under AES, EE/RE Stocks, Top 10 Lists, blogs, investing
Permalink
December 27, 2008 at 11:17 pm
· Filed under AES, EE/RE Stocks, Energy Investing, Energy efficiency, Obama, PV, Renewable Energy, Smart Grid, electric grid, investing, photovoltaics
Permalink
October 11, 2008 at 12:29 pm
· Filed under AES, Energy efficiency, Politics
My partners and I received a couple angry emails because of what I consider very well reasoned arguments as to why Barack Obama would be better on Energy and Climate than John McCain. It still shocks me that anyone interested in alternative energy investing would even consider this controversial. If they support McCain, they might not like the fact that their candidate isn’t the best on energy issues, but simply consider other matters more important.
YouTube Removes Clip of McCain mocking tire inflation.
It’s a crazy world we live in. In the first draft, we had found a video where McCain was shown deriding Obama’s advocacy for energy efficiency in the form of well-inflated tires, but it had been taken down by YouTube a day later. We had to settle for a news story talking about the McCain campaign and their tire guages, not McCain himself.
On what grounds was it removed, I have to wonder? It was a public appearance of a public figure, so you would think that it would not have been removed on copyright grounds, but your guess is as good as mine. Does YouTube remove all videos of public figures making fools of themselves?
Permalink
October 7, 2008 at 10:57 am
· Filed under Energy efficiency, Politics, Renewable Energy ·Tagged A52, A58, Boulder initiative 1A, clean energy, Colorado November Ballot
I vote in Colorado, and we actually have more initiatives on the ballot than in California. Again, from the perspective of a voter primarily concerned about climate change and clean, renewable energy, here are the propositions that are relevant. (I’ll spare you my opinion on if eggs should be people.)
Amendment 52 – Redirect severance tax revenues for road repairs. No.
A quick look at who’s backing this thing is enough to convince me it’s crazy. See my article on Colorado Republicans.
Amendment 58 – Ends a tax subsidy for the oil and gas industry. The saved money would be used to expand college scholarships, preserve wildlife habitat, support clean energy projects and help local communities deal with the impacts of oil and gas drilling. Yes.
I looked into this in detail as Policy Committee Chair for the Colorado Renewable Energy Society (CRES), which endorses the bill. Naturally the oil and gas drillers want to keep thier subsidies, which is why you’ve probably seen more ads against it than for it. See A Smarter Colorado for the other side’s take.
Boulder Initiative 1A. Yes. This would allow Boulder county to issue municipal bonds and use the proceeds for loans to help fund home energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements in residents’ homes. CRES has also endorsed this one, for pretty obvious reasons.
And, of course, if you care about clean energy, you’ll be voting for Mark Udall and Barack Obama. I used to like John McCain, and once even voted for him in a primary… back when he was a maverick. Now he’s just old, and in the pocket of his party.
Permalink
October 7, 2008 at 10:22 am
· Filed under Energy efficiency, Politics, Renewable Energy ·Tagged California, Prop 1, Prop 10, Prop 7
I’m not a California voter, but my father is, so he asked me my advice on the energy propositions. Here are the intiatives I see as affecting the clean energy global warming picture.
Prop 1: High Speed Rail Bonds. Yes. Rail is the most efficient form of transport we have.
Prop 7: Renewable Energy Generation Initiative Statute. Yes. This bill raises targets for CA’s RPS, but lowers the level of penalties for noncompliance. However, it does make the penalties slightly more enforcable. See CEERT for more details.
Prop 10: Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy Bonds Initiative Statute. Nah. This bill would mainly subsidize conversion of vehicles to natural gas and subsidize natural gas transport infrastructure. This would be an improvement over gasoline, but is not renewable. It would also be a windfall for T Boone Pickens and his Pickens Plan. Clean Energy Fuels, a company which Pickens Controls (and I own some stock in) would be the greatest beneficiary… it’s also the primary funder.
In addition, there are some worries that California would be subsidizing conversion of vehicles to natural gas, and then the vehicles would leave the state. If your main concern is global warming and energy security, however, natural gas vehicles would help both, no matter where they are in the country. But it is rather unfair to ask CA to subsidize the rest of the nation. I’d like this much better if it were a national initiative, rather than just California; the fairness issue bothers me most.
My dad’s voting for Prop 10… but he’s more enthusiastic about natural gas vehicles than I am, and seems unfazed by the fairness issue.
Permalink
June 14, 2008 at 9:46 pm
· Filed under Colorado, Compact flourescent lights, Denver Metro
This from Geenprint Denver:
Coloradans can now drop off used compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) and mercury-containing thermostats for free recycling at any Ace Hardware store in the state. The spiral shaped bulbs contain a small amount of mercury and should not be thrown away in the trash. CFLs are also accepted in Denver’s Household Hazardous Waste collection program.
Permalink
April 11, 2008 at 8:38 pm
· Filed under AES, Energy efficiency, Politics
Permalink
Older Posts »
