I've heard all kinds of remarks since T. Boone put the brakes on one of the world's largest planned wind farms last week.
Hardly any of them have been good, most of them are even using this to signal the death of renewables.
The death of renewables? Phooey.
This is the death of T. Boone's grandiose wind plans. Nothing more.
He's still in the wind business per his own admission. He's still going to employ the $2 billion worth of GE wind turbines he's already purchased. He's just not using them all at one giant wind farm, mostly due to Texas' lagging in building out transmission.
Here's some data the media and the uninformed seem to be forgetting about.
Of Pickens, Babies & Bathwater
First of all, let us not forget that the turbines for Pickens's giant 4,000 MW wind farm weren't even scheduled to be delivered until 2011.
Let us also not forget that even though the large farm is being canceled (or delayed), Pickens is still going to use the 687 turbines he's already purchased by building "three or four smaller wind farms, at a cost of some $2 billion."
Lastly, let us not forget that we're in the middle of a capital calamity. Bear Stearns is gone. Merrill is gone. Chrysler is gone. So are countless other businesses, brands, pensions, and plans.
Is it that shocking that renewable energy plans are slowing as well?
Renewable energy is a lot of great things, but it's not recession-proof.
Was this bad press a psychological blow for cleantech? Absolutely.
Is it the end of the industry and its profit potential? Absolutely not.
In reality, this is simply Boone being Boone, pursuing business as usual. The recession put a bump in his road, and he's nimbly navigating around it.
According to the billionaire, "We're going to be active in the business. It's not that we've gotten out of the business or anything like that."
And according to the spokesperson for his BP Capital Management firm, "Boone still remains committed and focused on developing wind energy in the United States. The timing is not as aggressive as he originally outlined because of the collapse of the capital markets and because of the steep downturn of natural gas prices."
So, I have two questions:
Is there a major industry that hasn't been stymied by the drying up of easy capital?
How does adapting to the current business environment signal the end of an industry?
Let's just take this for what it is, fallout from the recession.
And by all means, let's not through the wind baby out with Pickens's bathwater.
Wind Blowing Strong
Indeed, it seems the Pickens event was enough to give naysayers a few last breaths in recent days.
I've even heard it put as bluntly as "Nobody gives a fu** about the climate right now."
I'll let the G8 comment on that. Just last week those leaders agreed "to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius and cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent."
Oh, and the House just passed massive climate legislation as well.
And while I'll concede that climate change has taken a partial backseat to economic turmoil, the energy problem certainly hasn't. It's often overlooked that we're pursuing, investing in, and trying to expand renewable energy — not renewable climate change mitigation techniques.
That said, wind energy is actually looking quite strong.
The Best Lithium Play on the Market
A tiny Chinese lithium play is about to corner the market.
Even Warren Buffett is excited about it. He's already bought in.
In all reality, this could be the best stock to own for the next five years.
Click here to read all about it.
Recent reports from major European turbine producers like Vestas, Gamesa, and Nordex all point to a second-half recovery for wind financing. Most have nearly signed enough contracts to meet their 2009 fiscal sales and revenue guidance, with July and August being typical months for large wind orders.
And after this recession, wind energy will emerge even stronger.
29 of our 50 states have passed and signed into law some form of a renewable portfolio standard. That means the increased use of renewables is being mandated by law. Some five other states have similar voluntary measures, the House has passed a national version, and the Senate is about to consider it.
There is no legislation on the table to mandate the use of any non-renewable fuel.
Also going unnoticed are the tools being used to combat this recession on a global scale. In the rush to pass stimuli, renewable energy has emerged as the frontrunning combatant.
Since late last year, hundreds of billions of international dollars have been pledged to boost the use of cleantech as a path to economic prosperity.
Taking those funds into consideration, the wind business has never looked stronger. In the U.S., wind energy capacity is now forecast to double by 2011 (with or without T. Boone) from 25,369 MW installed at the end of 2008 to nearly 56,000 MW. It will triple by 2013 and quadruple by 2015.
That's just in the U.S.
In China, a recent $15 billion initiative will double their use of wind energy in the next year from 12,000 MW to nearly 30,000 MW. This is part of a bigger Chinese cleantech program that will spend $290 billion by 2020.
When it comes to global totals, the use of wind energy will double by 2013 and triple by 2016.
No non-renewable energy source will see that type of growth in the coming years. Period.
To Infinity and Beyond
This last fact is also often overlooked or misused to decry renewables.
Yes, renewables currently only account for a fraction of global energy use. But this isn't a bad thing. It means there is plenty of room to grow.
Renewables are the ground floor. Fossil fuels are slowly vacating the penthouse.
This is why the growth numbers are so astounding. . . and the investment potential so high. When you start at 0.1% of the energy mix, it's easy to double, triple, quadruple, and more.
The upside is a century long.
It means renewables have everything to gain and traditional energy sources have everything to lose.
And losing they are, even if Pickens is the one making headlines.
You see, while one wind farm cancellation dominated headlines last week, it went largely unnoticed that the 100th coal plant was canceled since 2002.
Not the first. . . the 100th. It certainly seems worse for coal than wind.
Because while states are passing laws to increase the use of renewable energy, Los Angeles said last week that it will stop using coal-fired power altogether by 2020. What's more, according to Reuters, "No utility-scale coal power plants operate in California anymore, and the state has banned new contracts for imported coal power."
So, for a quick exercise in logic:
T. Boone still wants to build his wind farm and pursue wind energy, but a lack of financing and transmission capacity have forced him to alter (not cancel) his plans.
100 coal plants have been cancelled in the past 7 years. And there's a movement, led by California, to ban their future use altogether.
For which industry is this news worse? You decide.
Call it like you see it,
Nick
P.S. Better yet, let your portfolio decide. The Alternative Energy Speculator is proving cleantech is the real deal with each and every closed winner. We proved it 27 times in the first half of 2009. Click here to read about our latest profit play and join thousands of other savvy investors who know clean energy is here to stay.









Subscribe to
1. He has used his 'bully pulpit' as one of our richest and best known oil men to educate the public that the days of oil are passing - that it's time to transition to primary energy sources that are keep our Dollars at home and preserve oil for more value-adding uses than moving us from here to there.
2. He has spent big money to prime the alternative energy pump - wind farms for electricity, natural gas as transportation fuel, and publicity to educate and motivate the public. Absolutely (to answer some critics), he would get richer still if his recommendations were carried out, but better, I'd say, that he get rich if it means we all get a better energy and economic future.
And so I was disappointed (but not much surprised) that Pickens is pulling back from his grander wind and natural gas plans.
As I've predicted more than once (http://rcbrothers1.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/toward-an-alternative-energy-dead-end/ and http://market-intel.com/blog/2009/04/06/here-comes-the-sun-again/ ) alternative energy developments cannot thrive in an environment of yo-yo'ing petroleum prices. They killed alternative energy 30 years ago, and they are strangling alternative energy today.
take a lesson from Fox news which
came from nothing 10 yrs ago and
quickly surged ahead of CNN and All
the left wing liberal biased media
by making a simple effort to try and
find the middle ground between liberal left and conservative right.
T. Boone just wants to get the government to pay (subsidize) him to build out his wind project.
When a forest burns to the ground, new growth starts immediately.
Keep up the great comments and research. I love your letter.
your friend,
Ray McDoniel
Lets get real and have the coal fired power plants clean up the emissions. This is what needs to be focused on. We the consumers will pay the ultimate costs anyways, so why add insult to injury by increasing the tax burden. Are the American people totally ignorant to where this money is coming from.... I think not!
When wind is self sustaining and can be built and operated without tax credits, let it be. Untill that day comes we should look at less government spending and let free market work out the issues of viability. If all else fails look at URANIUM......hello, it has been said that 1KG of Uranium produces as much energy as 1500 tons of coal.
Stop pumping 1/2 truths an poor information!
Sman
That said, a short while ago, I sent Boone the following:
In a message dated 7/14/2009 2:46:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, boone@pickensplan.com writes:
His Mesa Power LLP ordered 667 wind turbines from General Electric Co. last year for delivery, he said, starting in the first quarter of 2011. The turbines, which can produce up to 1,000 megawatts, may be installed "in Minnesota or someplace else," he said. Or he may just "put 'em in the garage," he said
Boone,
I don't understand why a time-phased approach wouldn't work. Surely there must be a tiny bit of excess transmission line capacity available now that industrial demand has decreased due to the recession. Why not install one or two turbines and get some helpful experience on a small scale before going all-out?
Also, the availability of plenty of natural gas now should not hinder the promotion of CNG for automotive use. There may be so much excess deliverability of gas with all the new discoveries of domestic shale gas that there may be no need for windmills to free up gas from turbines to make more gas available for fueling vehicles according to your original plan. Later on there will be lots more gas available from Alaska and Canada when Sarah Palin's big long gas line gets finished. If CNG for vehicle fuel is practical now being competetively priced at less than $4 per megaBTU, why not get on with it?
Bob Paglee