Jeff Siegel - Angel Publishing

Mass Transit Investing

Last month, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) announced that U.S. commuters took 2.6 billion trips on public transportation in the first three months of 2008.

That's nearly 85 million more trips than the first quarter of 2007.

APTA also announced that:

· Last year, 10.3 billion trips were taken on U.S. public transportation. This represents the highest number of trips taken in 50 years.

· In the first quarter of 2008, use of public transportation increased by 3.3 percent, while vehicle miles traveled on our nation's roads declined by 2.3 percent.

· Light rail systems had the highest increase in ridership, boasting a 10.3 percent increase in the first quarter. Baltimore's light rail system alone increased its ridership by 16.8 percent.

Still, while these are all impressive numbers, how realistic is it that these ridership numbers will continue to increase?

Even with $4.00 gas, there are many that still have absolutely no interest in public transportation.

Whether it's because of misconceptions about dirty or unsafe buses and trains, the comfort and familiarity of our own cars, or the inability of local mass transit administrations to provide convenient, efficient, and inexpensive alternatives - not everyone is jumping on the public transportation bandwagon.

In fact, in a recent Baltimore Sun article, commuters recounted their experiences with Maryland's public transportation system. Here's one that I found extremely poignant...

"The real disappointment is that I'm spending about $8 on gasoline to get to work and home. It takes me about 20 to 25 minutes one way, and I can drink my coffee while I drive.

The MTA solution takes two hours, costs about $4.30 round trip (I have to pay express fees for the #15 bus) and I can't have coffee while in the coach. The real issue here is that it costs me over 3 hours a day to save two gallons of gasoline, but only saves me $4. This, to me, is not a wise tradeoff."

Where's the tipping point?

Public transportation is a great idea. It can help relieve rush hour congestion, displace foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

But if it can't operate in a way that meets the demands of the consumer (especially when it comes to cost and convenience), it'll never be much more than the niche it is in most cities today.

And this is unfortunate, when you consider just how successful public transportation systems in other parts of the world are. If you've ever spent anytime in Europe, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Of course, there's still the belief that we haven't yet hit that tipping point that'll ultimately force some commuters to finally make the transition to mass transit.

Is it $5 a gallon, $6, $8?

No one really knows.

But one thing is for sure, individual states and cities aren't waiting around to find out.

No time to wait

Across the nation, cities and states are betting big on the future of public transportation.

Some aren't even waiting around for federal funds to make new projects happen.

Thanks to legislation in 21 states that enables transit agencies to form public-private partnerships to design, build and maintain local transit networks, some cities are moving ahead without federal resources. In fact, just last year the city of Houston announced that its transit authority would be using a private partner to take four different transit corridors from concept to operation as quickly as possible.

Bottom line: Construction on some of these transit projects needs to begin now...not three years from now. So waiting around for Washington is simply not an option.

Of course, in all fairness, the House did authorize an extra $1.7 billion in funding for public transportation last month. Under the plan, $750 million would be distributed throughout urban areas, and $100 million would be distributed through rural areas.

Not surprisingly, urban areas would get the lion's share of this funding. This is primarily because traffic congestion in many urban areas is actually getting worse.

According to the Texas Transportation Institute's 2007 Urban Mobility Report, congestion in 2007 caused urban commuters to travel 4.2 billion hours more and to purchase an extra 2.9 billion gallons of fuel for a congestion cost of $78 billion.

That's billion - with a "B"

Still, whether or not this funding ever gets passed is anybody's guess.

So in the meantime, we're focusing on the individual states and cities that are moving now...without handouts from the Hill. Because this is where new public transportation projects are leading us to opportunities stemming from bus contracts, infrastructure development and train/light rail deals.

In fact, there's one mass transit company that's been building a massive backlog of regional contracts over the past year. And once market conditions ease up a bit, Nick Hodge, managing editor of the Alternative Energy Speculator, will be recommending this company to his readers.

There's not much more I can say about this particular company right now, as Nick has not revealed it to his readers yet. But if you'd like to learn more about Nick's most recent recommendation - one that's up 23% in just the past week (while the rest of the market got hammered), click here now.

To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth...

Jeff

Progress Or Complacency?

So the G8's global warming discussions are officially over. What did they decide? Well, they made a statement that calls for cutting global greenhouse emissions in half by 2050.

It took these guys a full year to go from "seriously considering cutting carbon emissions in half by 2050" to agreeing to call for halving emissions by 2050.

Wow!

Can you imagine if you told your boss that you were "seriously considering making the company more money," then one year later, told him that you have decided that you will make the company more money.

You'd be fired on the spot. Hell, you probably would've been fired a year prior for making such a ridiculous statement.

Yet, here we are now, and some are actually hailing the G8's decision as "major progress."

In fact, and not even the least bit surprising, President Bush told reporters that "significant progress" has now been made on global warming. What that progress is, I have no idea.

Of course, this is the same guy who only recently decided that it was in his best interest to finally admit that global warming is an issue that must be addressed. Though, by this administration's actions, it's clear that the addressing of this issue will have to come from his replacement in 2009.

Hell, just yesterday, a former EPA official revealed that last October, Dick Cheney's office—in an attempt to avoid regulating greenhouse gas emissions—cut six pages from testimony on climate change and public health by the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

And according to Jason Burnett, the former senior adviser on climate change to EPA administrator Stephen Johnson, the office of the vice president sought deletions to the CDC's testimony regarding discussions of the human health consequences of climate change.

But I guess we shouldn't get too upset about this now. After all, the G-8 has called for cutting global greenhouse emissions in half by 2050.

Maybe next year they'll tell make a statement in regards to when they'll start discussing a base year. That'll give them at least two more years to solidify their next diversionary tactic.

Jeff

No Reason To Cheer The Loss Of 12,000 U.S. Jobs

According to a recent Reuters article, some coffee drinkers are now celebrating the latest economic hardships facing Starbucks (NASDAQ:SBUX).

Here's a quote from the article:

"I'm so happy. I'm so not a Starbucks person," said Melinda Vigliotti, sipping iced coffee at the Irving Farm Coffee House in New York. "I believe in supporting small businesses. Starbucks, bye-bye."

And there are quite a few folks who share this woman's opinion too.

Unfortunately, while bashing the brewer for being "too big" or "putting the smaller coffee shops out of business," few take the time to come down off of their moral high ground to realize that if wasn't for Starbucks creating a new coffee culture to begin with, half of those little independent coffee shops wouldn't even exist!

I'd also like to know if folks like Vigliottii realize that with Starbucks closing 600 stores, up to 12,000 jobs could be lost. Talk about hurting local economies!

There are also the local economies outside the U.S. that rely on Starbucks for their livelihoods. These will be affected too. Especially when it comes to all of those fair trade operations.

Starbucks is one of the largest purchasers of Fair Trade Certified coffee in the world. The company's global purchases of Fair Trade Certified coffee totaled 20 million pounds in 2007.

Let's also not forget the fact that Starbucks recently stopped serving core diary products that contain rBGH.

rBGH is a hormone typically given to cows on conventional dairy farms to increase production. Unfortunately, it's also known to cause udder infections, lameness, and reproductive problems. rBGH has also been criticized for increasing a growth hormone in cows and humans known as IGF-1. It has been suggested that elevated levels of IGF-1 have been associated with increased cancer rates.

I wonder how many of those local coffee shops use rBGH-free dairy products.

I wonder how many brew Fair Trade Certified coffee.

I wonder how many can provide employment for 12,000 U.S. workers.

Jeff

Innovation Or Exploitation: Which Do You Prefer?

With gas prices flying past $4.00 a gallon, we shouldn't be surprised to find the Bush administration practically demanding that Congress lift the ban on offshore drilling.

Saying that the U.S. needs to increase its energy production, the President declared that there was no excuse for delay.

We agree with part of that statement.

There is no excuse!

There's no excuse for delaying the large-scale integration of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) that could ultimately reduce our oil imports by as much as 80 percent.

There's no excuse for allowing the auto industry to dictate a pathetic CAFE standard of just 35 miles per gallon by 2020, while the fleet fuel economy averages in other countries are already much higher.

In Japan alone, the fleet fuel economy averages for new vehicles is 46.3 miles per gallon. And that standard was initiated in 2002! By 2010, the standard will be 48 miles per gallon.

There's no excuse for not bolstering our mass transit infrastructure, thereby enabling millions of U.S. workers to leave their cars at home.

If Washington really wants to get serious about helping the country "ease the pain at the pump," they'd bend over backwards to make this happen.

After all, our current public transportation system already saves 1.4 billion gallons of gasoline per year. Imagine if we could just double that to 2.8 billion gallons per year by adding and upgrading new systems.

Based on $4 a gallon, U.S. commuters would save $11.2 billion per year on gasoline costs!

It would also amount to...

· 68 fewer supertankers leaving the Middle East - one every 11 days

· Over 280,000 fewer tanker truck deliveries to service stations per year

· 216 million fewer cars filling up every year.

But no, Bush and company continue to spew the oil-sponsored rhetoric of more drilling.

This is no longer about finding more oil.

This is about a very necessary energy transition from finite resources to renewable resources.

After all, no matter how much you drill, it's only going to last so long.

Sure, in about 8 years that offshore oil would come online. And Bush claims we'll be able to get up to 18 billion barrels "over time." Whatever the hell "over time" means.

Either way, even if we did get 18 billion barrels, how long do you think that's going to last?

At our current rate of consumption we'll go through that in less than 3 years.

Why do we continue to entertain this ridiculous idea that drilling for more oil is a good idea, when the only real long-term solution to our oil/energy crisis is clearly alternatives?

Other than fat donations for our elected officials, I can't think of one.

Jeff

Renewable Energy Investing

I received an e-mail the other day from a reader who wanted to know if he should invest in more speculative renewable energy stocks, now that there are so many to choose from.

Obviously I cannot answer such a question on an individual basis, but I'm happy to share his question with you, since it is pretty relevant and timely.

You see, when we first started Green Chip, nearly every renewable energy investment was speculative. There were maybe 2 or 3 stocks that were considered "safe" when it came to this sector.

But today, many of those "speculative" stocks back in 2004 and 2005 are now some of the strongest and safest in the overall renewable energy mix.

Look at Ormat Technologies (NYSE:ORA), for instance.

Here's a stock that we recommended back in January, 2005.

When we first put out the recommendation, we had quite a few members who saw this stock as too risky.

But the potential was there, so we stuck to our guns.

This is how Ormat has performed since we added it to our portfolio...

Of course, even with the success of Ormat, there were also some that didn't work out quite as well. It's just the chance you take when you decide to invest in a stock that's so small.

That being said, a lot of this has to do with market conditions too.

In 2007, it seemed like we were adding new stocks to our portfolio almost every month.

But this year, the market's been too volatile for that. In fact, we've only been able to recommended 4 new stocks this year.

Here's how they've performed so far...

Stock #1 - up 83.59%

Stock #2 - up 23.04%

Stock #3 - up 6.13%

Stock #4 - up 13.57%

As you can see, being patient, and sticking with the "safer" plays has certainly done quite well for us.

Investing in Renewable Energy Stocks

But the question still remains - "Is it a good idea to start investing in some of the more speculative renewable energy stocks?"

This is really a personal decision based on how much risk you're willing to take. Though I have to be honest, market conditions this year have been pretty ripe for picking up (and profiting from) some of these more speculative plays.

Just ask Nick Hodge, managing editor of the Alternative Energy Speculator.

Nick got his readers into a certain speculative solar stock back in March. Today, that stock is up 143.3%.

Picking up a triple-digit gainer in 3 months is nothing to ignore.

And Nick's most recent speculative recommendation (one he made just 3 trading days ago) is up 18.41% already.

Of the 17 stocks in Nick's portfolio, 12 are winners.

And of those twelve, 7 are double-digit winners, and 2 are triple-digit winners.

So as you can see, there's certainly a real advantage to some of these speculative plays.

Fortunately Nick is an expert when it comes to analyzing risk vs. reward in these scenarios. That's why he's able to boast such an impressive portfolio.

It's also why we hired him to begin with!

In any event, the bottom line is: If you're willing to take on a bit more risk—with the right guidance—investing in some of these more speculative renewable energy stocks can definitely pay off big.

If you'd like to learn more about the Alternative Energy Speculator, or better yet—Nick's next pick, click here.

To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth...

Jeff

Nuclear Is Not A Renewable Resource

I received a press release from U.S. Senator Domenici's office this afternoon.

Here's an excerpt I'd like to share with you...

While some biofuels technology, like corn ethanol, is available now to help build that bridge, we must also move forward with advanced biofuels, including cellulosic ethanol, if we're going to get to the other side of the bridge where biofuels, nuclear energy, wind, solar, and other renewables will secure our energy future, free of foreign sources.

Notice anything odd?

Looks like the good folks at Domenici's office slipped "nuclear energy" into the list of "renewables that will secure our energy future."

You know, it's one thing to champion nuclear energy. If that's your angle...fine. We don't agree nuclear holds much promise as a clean, domestic energy source for the future as uranium is a finite resource. Not to mention, they still don't know what the hell to do with all the waste. Well, other than tell us they can "safely" store and transport it.

But to slip it into a press release as a component of the renewable energy framework? Well, that's just dishonest. And he knows it!

But I guess when your campaign donors include at least three dozen members of the Nuclear Energy Institute, you have to find ways to make them happy.

I just wonder if Vichi read the story today about how a reactor at the Indian Point nuclear power plant had to be shut down after radio frequencies from a camera interfered with a boiler pump that provides water to four steam generators.

Yeah, that sounds real safe and clean!

Jeff

They're At It Again

So it looks like the Saudis want to hold a summit to discuss how to handle the rising cost of oil, declaring that they will guarantee the availability of oil supplies now, and in the future.

Of course they neglect to state how much oil they're guaranteeing. But I can tell you one thing - it'll be less than the global demand.

Still, I suspect this is more about catering to the customer - placating him, if you will.

After all, if the world finds and embraces alternatives too soon, they may lose market share.

Personally, I don't see that happening for decades. Even if oil hits $200 or $300 a barrel. But you can't blame them for initiating a "just in case" plan - which is clearly something our elected officials are not too concerned with these days. At least not until it's too late.

No, they'd rather continue with their empty rhetoric, like this recent announcement that both the Democratic and Republican national conventions will be powered by wind and solar energy.

Talk about trying to pull a fast one!

Instead of bragging about how they're using renewables to power their dog and pony shows, perhaps they should get off their asses and extend the production tax credit for renewables.

If they don't, you're going to see many investors jump ship, a potential short-term slow down in the construction of safe, domestic, renewable energy projects, and many clean energy jobs possibly lost.

Utility rates continue to climb, oil prices continue to push the price of nearly everything up, loads of carbon emissions continue to be spewed all over the country without any accountability (except that which is passed on to the taxpayer) - but we're supposed to jump for joy because these guys found a PR firm to offset some electricity with renewables?

I tell ya, these guys really do prefer to play politics than do what's right for this country.

Our founding fathers would be disgusted!

Jeff

Renewable Energy Resources

The International Energy Agency (IEA) just released a new report which has stated that the world will need to invest $45 trillion to cut greenhouse gases in half by 2050.

$45 Trillion!!!

Last month, environment ministers from the G8 backed this 50 percent target, and they'll call for it to be officially endorsed next month.

Now listen, I'm all for cutting greenhouse gases. Especially since any major cuts will require heavy investment in renewable energy resources.

Unfortunately, the IEA's report came off as a bit questionable when it analyzed what needs to be done to make this happen.

Let's go nuclear!!!

The IEA study has stated that the world will need to build roughly 1,400 nuclear power plants in order to meet its 50 percent reduction target.

The only problem is, they don't make any recommendations on how to pull this off.

How do they expect to build 1,400 new nuclear power plants when we barely have enough uranium for what we have in operation now?

During a June, 2007 press conference, the CEO of Cameco Corporation, the largest uranium producer in the United States, indicated that he expects demand to grow at 3 percent annually (this was before the IEA's announcement today), for the next decade, but doesn't see uranium mining being able to keep pace with demand. As it stands today, he believes the demand for uranium will exceed supply for the next eight or nine years.

Additionally, a 2006 study by the Energy Watch Group indicated that even under the best-case estimates of uranium resources, production will peak before 2050, assuming today's rate of use. And now they suggest we drastically increase our nuclear infrastructure?

And how quickly do they expect this to happen?

These things don't go up like shopping malls!

The last reactor built in the U.S. took 30 years to approve and build.

You think folks don't want a wind turbine in their backyard? Try to convince them that a nuclear power plant, complete with a mandatory evacuation plan, is a good idea.

Let's go clean coal!!!

The IEA's second scenario calls for an acceleration of carbon capture and storage technology for coal-fired power plants.

This begs the question, "Do these guys even consider the fundamentals of supply and demand?"

You've heard me go on and on in these pages before about how our so-called 250-year supply of coal is vastly overstated because the numbers don't take into account the energy content of our reserves.

Bottom line: when you look at the energy content of our coal, instead of just the numbers (because there are different types of coal, each with different energy contents), you'll find that we may have already passed the peak of the good stuff.

And globally, we could be looking at a peak of coal production by around 2020.

For the specifics on this analysis, I strongly recommend you read Chris Nelder's piece: The Dirt on Coal. It will truly open your eyes!

Perhaps if the folks making our energy decisions these days were to look at these numbers, we'd be spending less time talking about coal, and more time talking about renewables.

The IEA was quick to push nuclear and coal in the report, while only giving a slight mention to wind. Which, by the way, is only one part of the overall renewable energy mix.

I'm not saying we can transition to 100% renewable in the near term. But focusing so much attention on just our last few bits of non-renewable energy resources is doing nothing but wasting precious time.

And while the IEA's study will certainly get posted in every pro-nuclear and pro-coal website, we maintain that no matter how you slice it, nothing will change the fact that fossil fuel depletion will ALWAYS be the issue that enables the long-term success of a strong, renewable energy market.

With some decisive leadership, and some much-needed infrastructure upgrades and transmission development (which is necessary with or without renewables), this can be done safely, economically and sustainably.

According to the DoE...

· Enough electric power for the entire United States could be generated by covering about 9 percent of Nevada with parabolic trough systems. This is a plot of land roughly 100 miles on each side.

· There are about 14 million quads of recoverable geothermal energy beneath U.S. soil. That's about 140,000 times our current energy consumption.

· There's enough potential offshore wind energy off the coast of the United States to cover nearly all the current installed U.S. electrical capacity.

Yes, it's true that all of these solutions require large upfront capital costs. But wind, solar and geothermal resources, no matter what part of the world you're in, will always remain infinite and carbon-free.

And that's why, despite how much they continue to push the pipe dreams of nuclear and clean coal, renewable energy maintains a level of long-term value that no conventional energy source can touch.

To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth...

Jeff

Biofuel Energy

I'll be the first to admit it.

I'm not a huge fan of corn-based ethanol.

There are just too many better solutions out there. Things like Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) or, dare I say it - mass transit systems like those which are operating successfully and profitably throughout Europe.

That being said, if biofuels can help replace just 5 to 10 percent of our oil imports - and do it in a safe and sustainable way - then we probably shouldn't be so quick to write them off.

But that's the key. Biofuel energy must be produced in a safe and sustainable way. Otherwise, we're just trading one problem for another.

Biofuel Energy: Food vs. Fuel

A couple of years ago, the food vs. fuel debate really started to pick up steam. After all, as ethanol momentum kicked into overdrive, so did the price of corn. Certainly there's a correlation there that cannot be denied.

But making biofuels the scapegoat for high food prices isn't completely justified either.

What about...

· The skyrocketing price of oil

· Surging global demand for grain and meat from China and India

· Hedge fund speculation on commodity markets

· Severe drought conditions like those we've recently seen in Australia

· A weak dollar

I'm not saying biofuels don't play a role. But how big of a role is questionable, as biofuel opponents have certainly been known to inflate the numbers in an effort to muddy the waters. These tend to be the same folks who blame biofuels for higher prices at the pump.

Is it true?

Depends who you ask, and who you want to believe.

While the Heritage Foundation (an organization that has received about a half million dollars from Exxon Mobil) has accused ethanol of contributing to the high cost of gas, Merrill Lynch (a U.S. securities firm that launched 2 biofuel indices in 2007) has stated that U.S. gas prices would be 15 percent higher without the effect of biofuels.

That would put today's average price close to $4.60 a gallon.

The Necessity of Sustainability

Even if biofuels do lower gas prices and can eventually help displace up to 10% of our oil imports... many of the environmental impacts of biofuel production must be accounted for.

After all, much of our agricultural system today is based on very dangerous, unsustainable practices. And don't brush this off as some kind of environmental propaganda either. There are many historical examples of how large civilizations have risen on the strength of their agriculture, but also crumbled because of unsustainable farming methods that destroyed the natural resource base.

The industrial agriculture system, for the most part, does not operate in a way that supports the long-term health of farmland. And this goes for both food crops and fuel crops.

In an effort to feed growing populations, the demand for chemical fertilizer production has grown dramatically. Unfortunately, most of the fertilizers used today are primarily derived from oil, natural gas and mined minerals. And not only do these fertilizers add to the fossil-fuel bill, they can also gradually increase the acidity of the soil until it begins to impede plant growth.

Chemically-fertilized land plots have also shown less biologic activity in the soil food web (the microscopic organisms that make up the soil ecosystem) than do plots that have been fertilized organically with manure or other biologic sources of fertility.

There's also the issue of water usage.

It's been estimated that it can take around 1,750 gallons of water to produce only one bushel of corn. That stings! Of course, we rarely blink an eye when we water our lawns. On average, a homeowner uses 21,600 gallons to water his lawn every year.

Still, while the production of one gallon of ethanol requires three gallons of water, it takes roughly 2.5 gallons of water to produce one gallon of gasoline.

Estimations for cellulosic ethanol do bring water consumption down to between one and 2.5 gallons.

Detour to Profitability

Now listen, I'm not writing this because I'm a huge believer in biofuels. As I've already indicated, their contribution to getting us off foreign oil is modest at best. And let's face it: we wouldn't even be discussing biofuels if it weren't for a lot of very convincing lobbyists and a handful of Midwestern Senators with dollar signs in their eyes.

But I do think it's important that we don't jump on the biofuel bashing bus without taking everything into consideration.

Is the biofuel industry operating in a sustainable manner, taking into consideration the long-term affects on agriculture and the environment? They're not there yet. But we believe they will get there. Simply because they have no other option.

The true test will be the next-generation technologies they deliver. More efficient production processes and the introduction of better feed stocks, like cellulosic materials, jatropha and algae.

These are the advances that will not only allow the biofuel industry to counter its critics, but they are also the advances that will enable investors like you to profit from a solution that is not only environmentally sustainable...but economically sustainable as well.

For more on alternative transportation technologies, click here.

To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth...

Jeff

Suing OPEC for High Oil Prices?

On Tuesday, the House of Representatives approved legislation that would allow the Justice Department to sue OPEC members for limiting oil supplies and working together to set crude prices.

Yes, they really did that.

Trying to sue OPEC for limiting oil supplies and setting crude prices is like a junkie trying to sue his dealer for not giving him enough heroin at a price HE thinks is reasonable.

If you ever needed any evidence that most of our elected officials have absolutely NO clue as to what's really going on here, this is it.

Of course, you and I both know that this is probably more of a dog and pony show than anything else. After all, their first priority really is sedating the voters with fairy dust legislation.

Then on Wednesday we had another "let's blame the oil execs for high prices" puppet show.

Senator Durbin asked the heads of Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, Shell, Chevron and BP if it troubled them when they saw what they were doing to us. I'd like to ask the senator what it is exactly that the oil companies are doing, other than feeding our addiction.

Then again, it has been with great success that Big Oil has lobbied their accusers to keep this addiction strong. But those guys on the Hill don't have to get their pockets lined with oil money. They just choose to do so. And now they have the audacity to pin the blame on the very hand that feeds them.

Suing OPEC for High Oil Prices: But Wait, It Gets Better!

During the hearing, Senator Arlen Specter decided to ask Exxon Mobil why the company's annual earnings increased from $11.5 billion to $40.6 billion over five years.

I don't know about you, but I think I'd be little pissed off if some bureaucrat decided to question me on how I make my money. If they really believed something unethical was going on here, wouldn't you think they'd already have some kind of legitimate and quiet investigation going on? Well, assuming ethics was a priority...which it clearly isn't. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

That joke isn't funny anymore

This crisis grows bigger and bigger by the hour, and we need a solution yesterday.

And I'm not talking about some ridiculous band-aid publicity stunt either—like the recent bill that was just signed to restrict oil shipments to the strategic petroleum reserve.

Deliveries into the reserve have now been suspended for the rest of the year. That's a whopping 70,000 barrels per day. We consume about 21 million barrels per day.

What a joke!

What should really be putting a burn in our bellies is that some members of Congress are now pushing to release oil from the emergency stockpile.

Rep. Edward Markey from Massachusetts said he didn't understand why the President wasn't releasing oil from the reserve to force down prices.

Hmmm. I don't know. Maybe it's because those reserves are there in case we need to respond to a future supply emergency? They're not there so guys like him can cozy up to voters by temporarily influencing prices!

So let's look at where we are now...

We can supposedly sue OPEC. Suing them should either make them laugh or make them angry. Either way, not a very smart move on our part. Especially since we're no longer backing up our reserves.

But that's alright, because in Washington they're showing the voters how upset they are with the oil companies by making them explain their profits.

Though I should note that Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy did bring up a good point. He said:

"Prices should not skyrocket like this in a properly functioning, competitive market."

And that's the key - a properly functioning, competitive market.

While Big Oil has been getting kick backs since day one (and for those of you who questioned me on this a couple of weeks ago, I urge you to take a look at this article which outlines the very proof you requested.), Congress and the President squabble over a few million dollars worth of tax breaks for Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs.)

Perhaps you've read about the PHEVs in these pages before. These are the vehicles that could allow nearly every U.S. commuter to drive to and from work every day without using a single drop of gas.

Seems to me that this makes more sense than threatening OPEC with lawsuits.

What's next? Judge Judy will be appointed to conduct the legal proceedings?

My friends, as this energy crisis continues to threaten our entire way of life, I do hope you are maintaining a strong, long-term position in renewables. Because at the end of the day, nothing can change the fact that our reliance upon finite, non-renewable resources is quickly coming to an end.

And this isn't just because we're bullish on renewable energy. It's because there is simply no other choice in the matter.

We're backed into a corner, and no amount of political maneuvering or quick fixes can change that.

The time for debate is over.

The time for action is now!

To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth...

Jeff

Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles

I'll be the first to admit it.

Over the past few years especially, I've had little sympathy for some of the major auto-makers that have been losing loads of cash. The way we see it, they brought it on themselves by trying to force the market, instead of supplying it properly.

Especially General Motors.

Back in 1997 GM had an opportunity to lead the world in fuel efficiency with their electric vehicle, the EV1.

The EV1 was an electric car (with an 80-mile range) that GM introduced before the California Air Resource Board's (CARB) original Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate went into effect.

The mandate required 2% of all new cars sold by the seven major auto-makers in California to meet "zero emission" standards by 1998, and 10% by 2003.

But GM, along with nearly every other major auto-maker, played both sides of the coin. While the EV1 was selling, and Toyota, Nissan and Honda were developing prototypes, the big auto-makers also aggressively tried to kill the ZEV mandate.

They were successful.

The lawyers got paid, the chairman of CARB got a cushy new job with the fuel cell institute (after manipulating the hearings on the ZEV to cater to the auto-makers while silencing ZEV advocates), and the EV1 was forced into extinction.

In 2006, this tragic story came to life in the documentary, "Who Killed The Electric Car?" And those who saw the movie called bullsh%$ on the world's biggest auto-maker.

Now, fast-forward to today - 2008.

The Toyota Prius is one of the most popular vehicles on the road. Its exceptional fuel efficiency has helped the company sell more than 1 million units. And as gas prices continue to rise, so does the demand for fuel efficiency.

Every major auto-maker is now offering hybrid versions of their vehicles. And most industry insiders agree that over the next decade, nearly every vehicle on the road will be some version of a hybrid. That includes GM.

In fact, GM, despite years of mediocrity, complacency and bad ideas, may actually have a shot at jumping to the head of the line when it comes to fuel efficiency.

Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles: They Finally Get It!

It's hard for a cynic like me to believe, but it's starting to look like GM may actually be the next major auto-maker to raise the bar in fuel efficiency.

Not counting the insanely efficient vehicles that some smaller companies and garage engineers have already built, of course.

The bottom line is that these guys have no choice.

The oil supply crunch is becoming more and more apparent every day. Gas prices are only going up from here, and consumers are freaking out.

But while some will continue to demand that the government step in and "fix" this problem - which you and I both know is not an option - it will have to be an increase in fuel efficiency to keep our personal transportation moving.

And GM knows this. They finally get it. They've finally decided to stop dictating consumer behavior, and start embracing it.

They're doing it with the Chevy Volt.

The Volt is a Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) that can deliver 40 miles in all-electric mode.

To give you a frame of reference, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics has indicated that U.S. commuters drive an average of 29 miles per day. For those who fall into this category, driving to work won't cost a single penny in gasoline costs. And if you go beyond the 40-mile range, the Volt's gas-powered engine kicks in, both propelling the vehicle and feeding an onboard generator that produces electricity while the car is operating.

Last week I attended the Alternative Fuels and Vehicles Conference in Las Vegas, where I had the opportunity to speak with a couple GM reps, and also see the Volt.

For a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, this sure as hell isn't some tinker toy car.

Take a look at these pictures:

It is our hope that GM will be successful with the Volt. It's a big game changer, and finally gives GM some much needed credibility with consumers seeking fuel efficiency.

Don't get me wrong. If they balk or continue to press Congress on inadequate fuel efficiency measures, I won't hesitate to call them out. We have to.

But I have to be honest. There was definitely a different attitude at this year's conference. There were no excuses about past decisions. In fact, there was much acknowledgement of GM's less-than-stellar past performance in the area of fuel efficiency.

These guys finally seem focused.

And we're eagerly awaiting 2011—when the vehicle should finally hit the market.

In the meantime, we remain bullish on the high-performance battery companies that continue to pick up momentum as GM and other major auto-makers begin to embrace PHEVs - the absolute best near-term solution to our oil crisis.

These batteries represent the next generation of fuel for personal transportation. They will enable a significant decrease in oil consumption, carbon emissions and infrastructure vulnerability.

The transitional energy economy is upon is, my friends.

Embrace it.

Profit from it!

To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth...

Jeff

Organic Photovoltaics

In the past, we've discussed potential moves in the field of organic photovoltaics.

This is what many researchers are looking to as the next evolution of solar.

But after attending the Organic Photovoltaics conference in Philadelphia last week, I suspect it might be some time before we see any solid plays in this area.

Organic photovoltaics (OPV) offers the promise of significant disruption in pricing and aesthetics, as well as impressive efficiencies in low light conditions. OPV materials are also flexible and form-fitting. This stuff can potentially be wrapped around or even painted onto various materials.

But in order for OPV companies to even consider competing, they have to at least measure up to the efficiency we see in current thin-film, where we've now seen levels at around 9% commercially, and 19.5% in the lab.

Today, based on assessments from the Department of Energy, and information both Nick Hodge and I have picked up while attending OPV conferences in 2007 and 2008, we're currently looking at OPV efficiencies at between 5% and 6.25%.

This stuff is not ready for prime-time power generation, as it simply cannot compete with other forms of solar power generation or even conventional forms of power generation.

That being said, we do see one angle that could really help propel OPV in the early stages. And that would be for applications which don't require significant efficiencies.

Organic Photovoltaic Applications

For example, imagine OPV applied to your cell phone.

Unlike conventional solar technologies, under low light conditions, like those in your office, home or conference room setting, OPV could continuously trickle-charge your phone. It could be possible that because of this OPV application, you'd never have to worry about your phone completely losing power.

Or perhaps OPV applied to the roof of a hybrid or plug-in hybrid electric vehicle.

While sitting out in a parking lot all day, or even while you're driving, the system could be charging your lithium-ion battery pack.

These are the kinds of applications that were being discussed at last week's OPV conference.

So at this point, we'll certainly continue to monitor the progress of OPV—but we expect the early investment opportunities to be found in applications like those just mentioned.

Because even though this is not the kind of power generation you can use to power your home...it still has the potential to offer disruptions in other markets.

And quite frankly, we really don't care where the profits come from.

As long as they keep on coming!

To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth...

Jeff

P.S. One of our newer services, Alternative Energy Speculator, is a great conduit for taking profits from some of the more speculative angles alternative energy, like organic photovoltaics. Read this report to learn more about the service and one the recent lucrative profit opportunities.

www.greenchipstocks.com

Renewable Energy Standards

The gas price blame game was in full swing this week.

President Bush recycled the same old nonsense about drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. You know, the place that supposedly holds about 10 billion barrels.

According to the Energy Department, opening up the refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce our dependence on imports, and lower prices by less than $0.50 a barrel.

Heck, we'll get a bigger upward move than that if someone sneezes too loud near a refinery.

Incidentally, even if they did open up the refuge to oil development, the oil wouldn't even start flowing for at least 9 years. That'll put us around 2017!

Then Hilary Clinton and John McCain proposed a gas tax holiday that, according to economists would just push the price of gas even higher.

Since refineries cannot increase their supply of gasoline in the space of a few summer months, any lower prices would just boost demand - rewarding Big Oil, instead of the consumer.

Not surprisingly, we haven't heard a peep out of the oil companies on this one. But mention a repeal of all that free money we keep giving them, and they'll rally the million-dollar lobbying troops in a New York minute.

Fortunately, on a local level, some real progress is actually being made with renewable energy standards.

Thank Ohio's Renewable Energy Standards for the Next Round of Investor Profits

Last week, after a unanimous vote, the Ohio State Senate sent new legislation to the desk of Governor Ted Strickland. This legislation establishes a 12.5% renewable electricity standard (RES) by 2025.

And the Governor is expected to sign it.

Now what does this mean for investors?

Well, when it comes to renewables, this is a wind-heavy state.

And according to the American Wind Energy Association, if wind energy constitutes 75% to 95% of the standard, the bill would establish a market for as much as 7,000 megawatts.

This is huge.

And for companies like Gamesa (MCE:GAM.MC), Iberdrola (MCE:IBE.MC), and GE (NYSE:GE), this could provide an absolute avalanche of hefty turbine contracts.

We also expect to see a number of smaller wind developers stepping up to take advantage of this opportunity. Much like we've seen in the past with wind developers in California.

Renewable Energy Standards and Wind Development

In fact, Green Chip Stocks members are already profiting from one small wind developer with revenue-generating properties in Palm Springs and Tehachapi, California. These are the two hottest wind-generating spots, with transmission, in the country.

But beyond the money we've already been making here (and will continue to make in the near future), there's still something much bigger at play.

· Ohio is a huge industrial state that uses a lot of power. This enables the state to become a very important market for renewables.

· This legislation could help jumpstart the state's manufacturing sector, which is highly-skilled, and looking for work.

· With Ohio on board, there would now be 26 states, plus the District of Columbia, that have mandatory renewable energy standards. That's more than half the country!

If the federal government can't get its act together and do this, the individual states will.

Of course, once the new residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue move in, that could change as well.

But in the meantime, we'll continue to profit—with or without the government's support. Just like we've been doing since we started. And just like we'll do once Ohio's new legislation becomes law.

To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth...

Jeff

www.energyandcapital.com

Investing in Hybrid Vehicles

Yesterday afternoon, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told the media that she had asked the President to work with Democrats to figure out a way to temporarily suspend oil deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in an effort to ease the pain at the pump.

Really?

We consume roughly 21 million barrels per day, and these guys are talking about temporarily suspending the 70,000 barrels that go to the reserves?

Give me a break!

It's funny, but every time we see oil prices soar, the politicians come out with their latest plan, and every plastic-faced anchor person on the local news gives us a laundry list of things we can do to help "ease the pain at the pump."

Here are a few of the wonderful suggestions we've seen so far.

· Keep your tires properly inflated

· Check and replace air filters regularly

· Don't speed

· Avoid excessive idling

· Stagger your work hours, if possible, to avoid peak rush hours

Stagger your work hours? Are these people serious?

How many hard-working folks in this country have the freedom to just "stagger their work hours" to avoid rush hour?

What a joke!

I have a better idea.

How about everyone stops jerking us around with all these BS "things we can do" to help ease the pain, and start integrating transportation options that simply cut our fuel consumption now!

Seems easy enough, right?

Tell that to Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota who's seeking to attach an amendment to the upcoming supplemental appropriations bill that would forbid the government from sending oil to the reserves if oil prices are above $75 a barrel.

Yeah, that's a brilliant idea. Under that line of thinking, we'll never have a strategic reserve again.

Listen: The solution to our gasoline consumption woes will not be found in diverting 70,000 barrels of oil per day. The solution to our gasoline consumption is to STOP CONSUMING SO MUCH DAMN GASOLINE!!!

The bastards that run the big auto-makers spent millions to keep the fuel efficiency standards low. The mandate is a pathetic 35 mpg by 2020.

As gas prices continue to rise, do you honestly think we should be waiting around for another 12 years, just to get to 35 miles per gallon?

This is solving nothing for the average citizen that's trying to feed his family with a devaluating dollar and a doubling and tripling of food prices!

Fortunately, there are dozens of forward-thinking capitalists that are now stepping up and offering REAL solutions. And these are the guys that are enabling the future of personal transportation by investing in hybrid... specifically, the next generation of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs).

In fact, on Thursday, a company we initially told our readers about almost a year ago, announced some very promising news for this industry.

Hybrid Vehicles: 77.41 Miles per Gallon? Done!!!

EnerDel, the advanced battery systems subsidiary of Ener1, Inc. (OTCBB:ENON) announced on Thursday the confirmation by a U.S. government laboratory of the energy, power and efficiency, as well as thermal performance of the company's lithium-ion battery system.

What's that mean?

Here's the quick version...

Based on the testing, using the company's lithium-titanate battery in a Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle configuration (of a Toyota Prius), the vehicle was able to achieve 77.41 miles per gallon.

Moreover, the battery pack did not overheat during the test. This has been a concern (and excuse) by the majors with lithium-ion batteries.

Now let me ask you this...

Which would you prefer?

A vehicle that meets the mandated 35 miles per gallon in 12 years, or a vehicle that'll get you 77.41 miles per gallon right now?

And answer that question, not as an investor, but as a consumer.

While our elected officials bicker over what to do with 70,000 barrels of oil in an effort shave $0.05 off the price of gas—the market has already begun to revolutionize personal transportation.

Because the market knows that a temporary $0.05 reduction in the price of gas is about as useful as Paris Hilton in a game of scrabble.

You want in on the future of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles and personal transportation? One that will enable an enormous reduction in oil consumption, and satisfy the demand of nearly every U.S. citizen that has to drive his car to work every day?

Then you better stake your claim to the PHEV market right now.

We've been getting rich investing off this stuff for the past few years, and we're going to continue to get rich off this stuff by investing for the next ten!

To a new way of life, my friends...and a new generation of wealth

Jeff

www.energyandcapital.com

Green Investing

Putting Earth Day in Perspective

So here we are, April 22, and all the headlines are screaming green in an effort to spread the Earth Day message.

There will be Earth Day rallies, festivals and dozens of local television news stories - on location - jumping on that green bandwagon and speaking volumes about something most know nothing about.

But hey, it's publicity, right?

And the more folks who go green, the more money we make.

Though the reality is, no matter how eco-friendly our society becomes, it's really the fundamentals of supply and demand that dictate the success of renewable energy markets.

Especially when it comes to oil.

Let's be serious. Do you really believe that every person who owns a hybrid is some kind of outspoken environmentalist?

No way!

It's a dollars and cents game, folks.

Oil flew past $117 on Monday. Gas is moving closer to $4.00 a gallon. Food prices are skyrocketing because of diesel cost increases. Some truck drivers are actually paying about $1,000 for one fill-up at a service station.

I'm not saying biofuel prices aren't affecting the cost of food, but don't be so quick to dismiss a $1,000 fill-up. In 2006, that same fill-up was costing about $300!

Yes, my friends - those high fuel costs are the real culprit.

And they're not going away either.

So it's really no surprise that the flow of capital into alternative transportation technologies continues to increase at a record pace.

Whether its high-performance batteries for Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles or pretreatment technologies for cellulosic ethanol production (a process that won't add to the overall cost of wheat, corn, and soy) - the smart money is staking its claim now.

Because the next stop is NOT $4.00 a gallon.

In fact, a year from now we'll be wishing for $4.00 a gallon.

Mark my words, this is not a trend that's likely to end any time soon...if ever.

Peak oil is upon us. And investors have two choices: Embrace the future, or fall victim to it.

To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth...

Jeff

Renewable Energy Stocks

On Wednesday, a number of stories came out claiming that the new White House stance on emissions lifted renewable energy stocks.

What a crock!

If you believe that one, there's a shiny bridge here in Baltimore I'd like to sell you.

Joking aside, I do suspect a lot of investors did fall for it.

In fact, I received a number of e-mails from readers asking if they should load up the boat based on President Bush's call for greenhouse gas caps.

Folks, if there's ever a reason to invest in renewable energy, Bush's announcement is not it!

I'm not saying public announcements from Washington can't move these stocks. Remember the famous "addicted to oil" speech? We swam in some serious profits for months as that quote rippled across the media pond.

But this latest Rose Garden tea party speech delivered nothing more than the same old stall tactics and empty promises.

No matter how you slice it, this is just another attempt by the Bush administration to slow progress.

And that, my friends, does not add long-term value to renewable energy stocks.

Fortunately, the basic fundamentals of supply and demand do. And that's why we continue to make money in this sector.

Renewable Energy Stocks: From Problems to Profits

The great thing about investing in renewable energy is that the marketplace, not Washington, continues to dictate our success.

Certainly any positive renewable energy legislation does add support. Just look at California's Solar Roofs Bill that, once signed into law, pushed solar manufacturing and solar installation stocks through the roof.

No pun intended

But overall, it's the overwhelming value of the renewable energy industry that allows the market to enable its unprecedented growth.

And investors looking to profit from renewables must focus more on that, than hype from Washington.

In fact, if you dissect Bush's speech on Wednesday, you can clearly see that his intentions actually lack support for real climate change solutions, and of course, renewable energy.

· The President has called for reducing reliance on gasoline by developing hydrogen-fuel engines for cars. I guess he didn't get the memo that while they continue to pour billions into hydrogen research for a "solution" that will take additional billions to build an infrastructure, a REAL solution already exists. It's called the Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle. The infrastructure exists now. The vehicles exist now. The technology exists now!

· The President claimed that we must cooperate with other countries on climate change, yet decided against sending a participant to a major 60-country renewable energy meeting in Berlin last week. Talk is cheap, my friends. Especially when your silence is worth billions!

· The President spoke boldly about cutting emissions, yet his administration has pretty much put the kibosh on climate decisions made within the EPA. Conflict of interest? Not when Big Oil's paying the tab!

Still, the President claims that his proposal is a realistic intermediate goal.

What that is, however, no one seems to know.

Including Dubya!

Meanwhile, the Big Oil machine that got him, and kept him employed for the past 7 ½ years (using the taxpayers as their patsies), continues to get all those wonderful tax breaks.

But if you're ok with this level of complacency—don't get too comfortable.

The Future Of Renewable Energy

The overall global consensus is that once the Bush administration is gone, the U.S. will finally move forward on REAL climate change solutions and REAL renewable energy integration.

John McCain, Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama all have expressed an interest in moving the U.S. from "problem" status to "solution" status when it comes to this stuff.

Here's why...

· In a 2007 U.S. survey conducted by CNN, 66% of the respondents said that they believe the U.S. should do what it can to reduce global warming, even if other nations ignore it.

· A 2007 poll conducted by the New York Times and CBS News found that 90% of Democrats, 80% of independents and 60% of Republicans believe that immediate action was required to curb the warming of the atmosphere and deal with its effects on the global climate. Respondents also expressed little confidence in President Bush's handling of environmental or energy issues.

· According to a 2007 national survey conducted by Yale University and Gallup, "a growing number of Americans consider global warming an important threat that calls for drastic actions, and 40% say that a presidential candidate's position on the issue will strongly influence how they vote."

Whether they personally believe in renewable energy or not, they want the job...and they want to keep the job. So they'll deliver.

It's going to happen.

And that's why we continue to invest in, and profit from renewable energy stocks.

Because once the old guard is out, you're going to see renewable energy stocks soar even higher than they've already soared with the Bush administration setting up road blocks every step of the way.

The key to making money, however—is getting in now, and riding the momentum to the top.

And anyone who doesn't believe this is going to miss out on the greatest investment opportunity of the 21^st Century.

Mark my words!

To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth...

Jeff

Marine Energy

It may not be as shiny as solar, or exciting as wind, but marine energy is what many analysts are now calling, "The Sleeping Giant of Renewables."

And it's easy to see why.

Marine energy is the world's largest untapped energy source, and it maintains a significant advantage over both solar and wind--it's constant.

While solar and wind certainly offer up some pretty impressive investment opportunities (Just ask those who are up 59.4% on the Alternative Energy Speculator's latest solar play), both wind and solar power systems only provide intermittent power generation, as sunlight and wind are not available 24/7.

Marine energy, however, is constant with the motion of the waves and tides. That is 24/7--and there's enough of it to...

Marine Energy: Power the Entire Globe

Just ask the experts...

The World Energy Council has estimated that marine energy could supply twice as much electricity as the entire world now consumes.
The Electric Power Research Institute has estimated wave energy along the U.S. coastlines at 2,100 TWh per year, or roughly half the country's total electricity consumption.
And a study prepared for the Scottish Parliament estimated that the wave energy potential for Europe is about three times the current electrical generating capacity of the UK. As well, the study estimated that the power could be delivered on par with the cost of grid power.

Heck, even peak oil and energy expert, Matt Simmons is organizing a facility in Rockland, Maine called the Ocean Energy Institute. Simmons stated in a recent interview that you only need about $50 million--which he said is nothing in the energy business--to get you through at least five years of seeing how real this area is.

Part of the Ocean Energy Institute, by the way, includes a venture-capital fund!

Turning the Tide

While marine energy is definitely in its infancy compared to pretty much all the other energy sources we use today, it's starting to gain a lot of attention--and more importantly, large influxes of investment capital. This is primarily due to improved technology that's enabling better economics, coupled with new deployments that are proving these projects can deliver the goods...competitively.

In fact, just last week a company called Marine Current Turbines successfully completed the first installation phase of its 1.2MW tidal power system in the waters of the Strangford Narrows in Northern Ireland.

The system, known as SeaGen, is expected to be fully operational later this summer, where it will operate between 18 to 20 hours per day, producing enough electricity for 1,000 homes.

Not surprisingly, a power purchase agreement has been signed with ESB-- Ireland's national electric company.

Incidentally, the company also had little trouble landing $15 million in funding from Triodos Bank and hedge fund, AM2 last year.

Here in the U.S., there have also been a number of marine energy projects under construction over the past few years. And many have since been deployed, and are now being tested.

In New York City, Verdant Power is testing a few tidal current turbines in the East River. They expect to have 10MW running by 2010.
In San Francisco, Pacific Gas & Electric (NYSE:PCG) is working with local agencies to explore tidal power projects in the San Francisco Bay. The Electric Power Research Institute has actually stated that the city could tap enough wave power at Ocean Beach to keep all of San Francisco lit.
Ocean Power Technologies (NASDAQ:OPTT) has deployed systems in Oahu, Hawaii, and has an operational wave energy system in New Jersey.

There's also a small Canadian company that's recently received its permit approval for a wave energy project in Oregon. Even better - the company has landed a 15- year deal with PG&E to deliver power starting in 2010.

That's less than two years away!

You can find out more about this company by becoming a member of the Alternative Energy Speculator.

To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth...

Jeff

Congress Drills Big Oil

Recently, Congress drilled Big Oil execs, looking for explanations as to why, with huge industry profits, they're not investing more to develop renewable energy sources.

I'll give you two reasons:

1.) Because they choose not to.

2.) Because the very lot that's questioning these guys is the same lot that's been taking kickbacks to enable Big Oil's free ride for so many years.

You know, I find it rather interesting and, really, altogether offensive that the government feels it has a right to question the oil companies about why they haven't invested more to develop renewable energy.

If they don't want to, they don't have to.

Who's questioning these guys, the U.S. Congress or the Politburo?

Listen, if the bureaucrats in Washington wanted to see more investment in renewable energy, they could just rescind the $18 million worth of Big Oil tax breaks already, and allow the oil companies to fund their own exploration without the help of John Q. Taxpayer.

But they can't do that, because half of them are on the take from the very people they're lecturing now.

It's a façade! This whole dog and pony show is nothing more than a PR stunt that those on the Hill are hoping will sedate a growing population of angry voters.

Hush Money and Lies

Of course, some oil companies certainly aren't innocent bystanders in all this either.

It's one thing to decide against investing in renewable energy. That is a decision for the shareholders, not the government. However, it's another to aggressively disseminate misinformation in an attempt to confuse the public. Something many of these guys are experts at.

Take Exxon Mobil, for instance.

When Exxon Mobil Senior VP, J.S. Simon was asked why his company was resisting the renewable revolution, he quickly noted that they had provided $100 million on research into climate change at Stanford University.

What he failed to mention is that many Stanford alumni and students have vigorously opposed Exxon's support for its Global Climate and Energy Project (which Exxon Mobil has thrown $100 million behind), because the company is really doing nothing more than exploiting the Stanford name and reputation to help block shareholder proposals asking Exxon Mobil to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

It's basically hush money so they can operate business as usual.

Simon also said that current alternative energy technologies just don't have an appreciable impact in the challenge we're trying to meet.

Well, if the "challenge" is keeping the public in the dark about peak oil and the realities of global energy supply constraints and climate change, then yes, alternative energy technologies fall into the category of things they probably want to avoid.

Of course, we know the truth.

We know that...

· The U.S. Department of Energy has stated that wind could provide 5,800 quads of energy each year. That's about 15 times the current global energy demand.

· Researchers at M.I.T. have stated that there are over 100 million quads of accessible geothermal energy worldwide. The world consumes only 400 quads.

· The Electric Power Research Institute has estimated wave energy along the U.S. coastline at 2,100 TWh per year. That's half the total U.S. consumption of electricity.

· According to the Department of Energy's office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, enough electric power for the entire U.S. could be generated by covering about 9 percent of Nevada with solar parabolic trough systems—a plot of land about 100 miles on a side.

· The Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory released a report in 2006 which stated that "off-peak" electricity production and transmission capacity could fuel 84 percent of the country's 220 million vehicles if they were Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles.

Instead of making excuses, it would be refreshing if Exxon Mobil reps would just tell the truth. They have no interest in pursuing renewable energy investments. That's not a crime! Economically and socially irresponsible, perhaps. But illegal—no.

Though I guess that's asking too much.

Instead, Simon told Congress that imposing punitive taxes (a.k.a.-rescinding unnecessary tax breaks), will discourage the sustained investment needed to continue safeguarding U.S. energy security.

Call me crazy, but wouldn't we be a lot more secure if we didn't have to depend on imported oil from countries that hate us?

Of course, this isn't about logic or what's right and wrong. It's about getting rich at the expense of the taxpayer. And as long as Congress stays on Big Oil's payroll, and Bush and company continue to veto any legislation that offers a real solution to our real energy crisis, then the status quo will be maintained.

Fortunately, the market isn't dictated by the buffoonery in Washington. And that's why we continue to clean up in renewable energy.

In fact, our most recent wind play has delivered gains in excess of 53% in the past 25 trading days. Which means we have about 129% more to look forward to before we sell it for a fat profit.

For instant access to this recommendation, click here and become a member now.

To a new way of life, my friends...and a new generation of wealth,

Jeff

Editor's Note: On the subject of white-hot energy plays, we've been covering an unconventional domestic oil play for the last two years. Oil and gas companies are already drilling there, reporting one successful oil drilling result after another. And many Energy & Capital readers have already made their first round of profits off the massive Bakken formation in North Dakota-Montana-Saskatchewan. The best part, however, is that its not too late to get a piece of the action. If you're interested, check it out for yourself at the $20 Trillion Report.

OPEC Oil Industry

Wallowing in the gutter of mainstream media, I found myself glued to the television a few weeks ago when Paris Hilton was sent to jail.

It was one of those instances where you find yourself yelling at the idiot box because what you're seeing and hearing is so absurd, silence just isn't an option.

The dirty princess was hauled off to jail after, get this-breaking the law.

My favorite part was when she screamed, "It's not right!"

Surprisingly, the drunken heiress' cries didn't seem to rally the sympathy troops here in the U.S.

In fact, most were quick to call bullshit on her dramatic pleas.

Unfortunately, few have mustered up the same energy to call bullshit on something much more important: OPEC's announcement on Wednesday that it may have to reduce supplies because of repeated calls by industrialized countries to reduce dependence on oil.

Are you kidding me?

If this ain't a shakedown, I don't know what is.

But it gets better.

OPEC president, Mohamed Al Hamli said...

"OPEC members are developing nations with limited resources and it would be a waste of badly needed funds to invest heavily in oil production if demand is unclear"

They already have us by the short hairs. And that's with or without renewables.

Do they really think demand is unclear?

Any idiot can look to the market for that answer.

He also said that he welcomed diversity in fuel sources, and added that fuels derived from petroleum have become cleaner over the years.

Really?

Well that's good. Because obviously, we want the cleanest fuel for our vehicles.

So let's take a look at our choices:

"Cleaner burning" petroleum products or zero-emission vehicles that don't use a single drop of gas.

Pardon me if I don't buy the "cleaner burning" fuels argument.

But here's my favorite...

To continue his ridiculous rant, Al Hamli stated that oil was a force for alleviating poverty because many people lack access to modern fuels for cooking and heating.

But you know what they do have access to?

The sun!

And that resource is free. Which, by my calculations, is actually cheaper than "cheap" oil.

OPEC and the oil industry as a whole have done an excellent job at keeping alternatives, like solar and win, out of the picture through price manipulations, misinformation campaigns and good old-fashioned muscle.

If anything, it can be argued that the strategic suppression of cleaner, cheaper energy sources have actually helped perpetuate poverty...not alleviate it.

But hey, Paris Hilton was release from jail this past Tuesday.

I hear she's doing great!

Until next time...

Jeff

Nuclear Safety

So it turns out that a radioactive leak from a nuclear power plant in Japan was 50 percent bigger than first reported two days ago.

And to make matters worse, Tokyo Electric Power told reporters yesterday that about 400 barrels of low-level radioactive waste at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant were knocked over, and the lids had come off 40 of them after Monday's earthquake.

Knocked over?!!

Really?!!!

Because I keep hearing from the media that nuclear is safe now.

At least that's what nuclear supporters are telling us.

Heck, some are even declaring it safe and clean enough to be aligned with the renewable energy industry.

But you know what?

It's not clean, and it sure as hell isn't safe!

Sure, the pro-nuclear PR machine can spin it with the best of them.

Just go to the World Nuclear Association's website where you'll find a section boasting the title, "A Superb Record of Nuclear Safety" in big, bold letters.

Here's an excerpt from that page...

Today, nuclear power plants have a superb safety record - both for plant workers and the public. In the transport of nuclear material, highly engineered containers - capable of withstanding enormous impact - are the industrial norm. More than 20,000 containers of spent fuel and high-level waste have been shipped safely over a total distance exceeding 30 million kilometres.

Wow. It's sure great to know that the transport of nuclear material is done using highly engineered containers that are capable of withstanding enormous impact.

I definitely know that the solar, wind and geothermal industries don't transport their nuclear material in these types of containers.

Of course, with solar, wind and geothermal...THERE IS NO NUCLEAR WASTE!!!

And radiation?

Well, the World Nuclear Association assures its readers that radiation is released naturally from the ground and atmosphere in all places on earth.

Are they really using this as an argument?

Better yet, they also seem to be pretty excited about the fact that "modern civilization produces huge quantities of industrial waste requiring careful treatment and disposal." But "...nuclear waste is comparatively tiny in amount and highly manageable." In fact, "The spent fuel produced yearly from all the world's reactors would fit inside a two-storey structure built on a basketball court."

Well I'm sold.

Just don't put that mutant factory in my backyard!

Listen, nuclear power can't be considered clean, simply because it produces lethal radioactive waste that, no matter where you contain it, move it or store it, will be extremely dangerous for thousands of years.

And let's face it, scientists still haven't found a permanent solution to get rid of this stuff safely.

It's just one temporary solution after the next.

And nuclear power can't be considered safe either. Not when all the towns surrounding a reactor need an evacuation plan.

Do we need such an evacuation plan for solar panels, geothermal power plants or wind turbines?

You know the answer to that one.

Until next time...

Jeff