The reason is simple. Money isn't interested in problems; it's only interested in solutions. And wherever capital goes is where the changes will be made.

The public also has little appetite for unpleasant stories, even true ones. The message is: Don't tell us what we can't consume — tell us what we can consume. Tell us our grid power costs are going to go up because of climate change and we'll fight it. But help us buy efficiency improvements and renewables that will pay for themselves in fuel savings, and we'll support it all the way.

A new Pew study on "apocalypse fatigue" highlights the problem nicely. The public's confidence in the global warming problem has fallen sharply this year, even as momentum built toward Copenhagen.

Guilt and deprivation simply don't sell like opportunity does.

That's why trillions of dollars are pouring into cleantech annually, while the peak oil community continues to go begging for a few dollars to staff a small office and keep a web server running, all while battling a constant onslaught of misinformation placed in the top mainstream media by very deep-pocketed vested interests.

That's why I said last week that the IEA was shrewd to turn its annual World Energy Outlook into a stalking horse, masquerading its alarm about peak oil as an earnest appeal to address climate change.

It's also why I applaud Chevron's new commitment to offer mentoring, resources, and financial support to the Cleantech Open through its $240 million venture capital arm. Chevron has long held the lead among its peers, I think, for engaging with the public on the energy challenges ahead with their "Will You Join Us?" campaign.

Oil industry, take note: That's how you bridge the great divide between the Greens and the Browns — by putting some oil industry profits into the solutions for a world after cheap and easy oil.

Here are a few key concepts from the peak oil study that should inform climate policy.

All of the Above

First, solving the energy crisis isn't an either Green or Brown proposition, but all of the above. There is a dangerous paradox here that the peakists can help the world avoid.

Climate activists need to realize that the renewable energy revolution can only be built on the back of fossil fuels. It will take vast amounts of oil, gas, and coal to mine raw ores, crush them, transport them, smelt them down and turn them into stock, transport them again, and turn them into end-products. . . then transport them again. We have no idea how to do all that without petroleum fuels, gas, and coking coal.

Therefore, in order to build a vast new infrastructure of solar and wind generation, ubiquitous rail transport, plug-in and natural gas vehicles, the next-generation grid, and so on, and do it at a reasonable price, we'll have to ensure that fossil fuels receive vigorous and sustained investment.

Here's a rough, rule-of-thumb way of expressing the supply dilemma: We have to fill a 25% gap in 25 years, a 50% gap in 50 years, and we need to be off fossil fuels completely by the end of the century.

Here's another rule of thumb: Starting two to four years from now, the world will need to build the equivalent of all the world's existing renewable energy capacity every year just to compensate for the decline of oil.

Meeting that challenge with renewables and efficiency would solve the emissions problem as a side effect, only it would do so by harnessing the profit motive — not by penalizing production. That's how capitalism works best.

If we allow climate policy to pour cold water on the fire of fossil fuels, we would extinguish the growth in renewables too. Failing to maintain a steady supply of fossil fuels, even as they peak and decline, their prices rise, and their availability shrinks, would subject the cleantech industry to devastating boom and bust cycles.

Count on Less Fuel. . . and Less CO2

It's fairly astonishing, but none of the climate change models take the peaking of any fossil fuels into account. They all project — over a period of 30 years or more! — fairly simple growth curves for population and the global economy, assuming that sufficient oil, gas and coal will be available to satisfy demand at historically normal prices.

As the peakists know, nothing could be further from the truth.

If my current understanding of the situation is even close to correct — peak oil circa 2005-2012; peak gas 2015-2020 and peak coal 2025-2030 — then the climate models are not accurately modeling 78% of the global energy supply over the next 30 years.

Accordingly, the CO2 projections must be wrong. Ultimately, the population-based forecasts must also be wrong. The peak oil study can help correct these glaring flaws by offering better data to the CO2 emissions models.

Easier to Switch than Fight

Resisting the policy focus on climate change, and resisting the truth about peak oil, the fossil fuel industry has become its own worst enemy.

By perceiving these issues as threats, the Browns have created a vicious cycle. Fighting the renewable energy revolution sows public opposition, adds cost, and delays the deployment of renewables, which makes the CO2 problem worse. The worse the CO2 problem gets, the more it costs them.

If instead the Browns acknowledged that the future of fossil fuels will be increasingly difficult and expensive, and that CO2 is a problem they need to own, it would feed a virtuous cycle.

Peak-adjusted fuel models would lower the projected CO2 emissions, reducing the cost of mitigation and buying a bit more time for the transition to renewables. It would give the energy industry a clear mandate to invest more in renewables, and do so in a measured, less disruptive way. In turn, the accelerated adoption of renewables would reduce CO2 projections and feed further investment, reducing CO2 even more.

Hopefully, the peakists can help the fossil fuel industry come to terms with a decarbonized future, and in so doing, ensure its long term survival.

Incentivize, Don't Penalize

Perhaps the most important way that the peakists can help the climate change cause is by changing the focus to what goes into the engine, instead of what comes out of the tailpipe.

As I have argued, incentivizing renewable energy solutions would be far more effective than penalizing fossil fuel producers. As an example, consider carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).

CCS remains an infant technology. As a recent article in Scientific American pointed out, there is currently only one project in the world that does CCS (the 1,300 megawatt coal-fired Mountaineer Power Plant in West Virginia), and it captures a lousy 1.5% percent of its emissions.

Before CCS can be scaled up, there are also significant issues to be solved in finding sufficient storage capacity, transporting the CO2 to the storage sinks, and doing it all at an acceptable price.

Worse, if CCS is ever deployed at scale, the cap-and-trade approach to CO2 emissions would push the technology toward cement factories and natural gas-fired power plants before coal-fired plants, because of the additional cost and complexity of filtering out CO2 from coal plant effluent.

The CCS process alone will consume an estimated 30% of the energy a "clean coal" plant produces, and add up to 78% to the cost of the produced power. Should the technology catch on, its added costs and reduction in output would likely arrive at the worst time: just as oil goes into its long decline.

Emphasizing CO2 emissions in policy, therefore, has several undesirable outcomes: It doesn't address coal plants satisfactorily; it raises costs substantially; it reduces overall power output; and it engenders resistance from the energy industry.

By contrast, focusing on the renewable generation side — what goes into the engine — results in increasing amounts of power that was clean to begin with, at ever-declining costs, and could create a long-term growth opportunity for the energy industry.

Follow The Yellow Brick Road

One needs to look no further than the backpedaling in anticipation of the Copenhagen summit to see the fundamental problem. The meeting is now essentially pre-programmed for failure, thanks to a continuing deadlock between developed and developing nations over who will shoulder the responsibility for future emissions.

It doesn't help that President Obama has refused to commit to binding emissions targets internationally before Congress passes domestic emissions legislation, and that the U.S. Senate has now decided not act on its bills until the spring.

Commenting on the climate bill, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D., MO) said, "It's really big, really, really hard, and is going to make a lot of people mad."

I think that's true, and it should tell us something: It's a whole lot easier to find the financing and business support to roll out millions of little solar systems and insulation upgrades and more efficient vehicles, and so on, than it is to get a world full of politicians to agree on anything. Even after you get that agreement, you still have to build the solar systems and cars and install the insulation.

At best, the summit will probably result in non-binding political agreements. But I prefer to take a longer view of the climate change movement.

It doesn't really matter if Copenhagen is deemed a failure or a success. And it doesn't really matter if we take a backwards approach to the renewable energy revolution.

The only thing that matters is that the world continues to make progress in the right direction. Here, the peakists have an important role to play.

Somewhere over the rainbow, down a long and winding Yellow Brick Road, is energy's Emerald City, and we'll need the pragmatic peakists to lead us there. With their help, the Greens can get their heads out of the clouds, the Browns can move their rusting limbs again and learn some compassion for the earth, and the policymakers can find some courage.

Until next time,

Chris

With $19 billion in planned spending, the cabinet is directing the national political and corporate leadership to put more than a gigawatt of installed capacity in place by 2012. The pace of the rollout will have to pick up quickly, since the government is targeting 20 GW of solar generating capacity by 2022.

The plan will go into effect over three phases, using power purchase agreements (PPA) to stabilize demand while driving local production prices down. India's goal, as with China's own solar energy plan, is to develop top-to-bottom solutions for domestic industrial expansion. Quite simply, these emerging markets have their sights set on energy independence and international prominence in clean energy.

You can read about some of the international solar power stocks that will benefit from a broad-based global solar rollout, right here:

Solar Energy Stocks

-Sam Hopkins

Good investing,

Jeff Siegel

Publisher, Green Chip Stocks

——— 

The Truth Behind this "Green" Media Scam 

We've gotten a lot of questions at Green Chip Stocks lately about the "Green Millionaire" ads running on TV and online.

Namely, people ask, "Is this 'Green Millionaire' thing for real?"

The answer:  Lowercase "green millionaires" are very real. They're entrepreneurs and investors who have sown their own money and harvested value from the global transition to clean energy.

The uppercase "Green Millionaire" you see on the web and during commercial breaks on CNBC is, by contrast, an insulting fraud.

Now, we're not territorial about the word "green."  But a simple search reveals that the big book being touted in the Green Millionaire ads isn't a book at all — it's an e-book: more like a pamphlet you download from the net.

Second, the tips that could make you a millionaire by using that book are more Benjamin Franklin than Nigel Williams, the man behind the media campaign. If you drive less and insulate your home, you'll save money. If you buy a diesel car and convert fry grease to biodiesel, you'll save money.

Brilliant, right?

But where does that get you?

From all indications, reading those exact tips in the Green Millionaire book will get you nothing more than an e-mail subscription and recurring billing that is — by several published accounts — difficult to cancel.

People who want to save money (and yes, even make money), while doing their part to contribute to a cleaner energy economy, can invest in a plethora of listed companies.

The information that the "Green Millionaire" site and book claim to break as "hot tips" is neither hot nor tip-like in nature. Readers don't gain an edge, and they have no real interactive relationship with the Green Millionaire setup. This is public information, available all over the internet at government websites like www.epa.gov and even at Google's corporate Green Initiative site.

Green Chip Review, on the other hand, is a free e-mail newsletter delivering information about what kinds of investment opportunities are out there in cleantech, renewable energy, water, and infrastructure — information we provide without a bogus $1 processing fee for you to download a PDF or receive an e-mail.

We have a broad web presence on www.greenchipstocks.com, www.twitter.com/greenchiponline, and in all of the websites and newsletters that pick up our material on a regular basis.

Green Chip Stocks, Green Chip International, Alternative Energy Trader, and Alternative Energy Speculator are all stock recommendation services that you can choose to subscribe to in order to receive timely, specific information on carefully selected companies and their shares.

You can learn more by checking out our subscription services here: Green Chip Premium Portfolios.

Or, just keep reading Green Chip Review at no cost whatsoever, and we'll keep you supplied with top-notch market info.

As one GCR reader summed it up after a recent report:

"Great article and summary. What's really sad is that I have been getting better background information from you guys than I have from the news media and our elected leaders. Keep up the great work." 

You can let your friends who are interested in green investing know to steer clear of the Green Millionaire scam by forwarding this e-mail.

Regards,

Sam Hopkins

Then, a few days later, I told you that Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) wanted the Obama administration to reject an expected request for stimulus funding for this particular wind project because it could end up generating Chinese jobs - not U.S. jobs. According to the Senator, if approved, the funds would be used to buy turbines and other components made in a Chinese plant.

Well, yesterday we found out that the turbine manufacturer for this project, A-Power Energy Systems, is now going to build a turbine production facility in the U.S.

Expected to employ about 1,000 U.S. workers, the new plant will produce more than 1,000 megawatts per year.

I realize there will still be some folks upset over the fact that a U.S. turbine manufacturer is not being used for this project. But if the Chinese are willing to come here and do something we could've started doing years ago - so be it.

That being said, it should also be noted that according to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, companies that have supplied turbines to funded farms had U.S. plants and the farms are in the U.S. - thereby creating local installation jobs and tax revenue. He also cited an industry statistic that indicated 53% of the value of turbine parts installed under the stimulus program were American-made.

Jeff

Sure, there are a number of studies out there that question the validity of some green jobs or seek to find a more precise definition of what a green job is. And this is all relevant stuff.

But there are also studies that I have to call out as being nothing more than politically-charged rhetoric.

Like the "7 Myths About Green Jobs" study that came out earlier this year.

I won't get into the nuts and bolts, but despite what seemed like an honest approach to a valid question: How do special interest groups calculate how many green jobs new energy policies would create? I quickly found myself reading what hinted at some questionable intentions hiding behind the guise of academic research.

I agree completely with the notion that an honest examination of methodologies used to calculate these green jobs is important.

But the authors of this study lost me when they stated that ". . . green job estimates often include huge numbers of clerical, bureaucratic and administrative positions that do not produce goods or serves for consumption; and that problematic assumptions are made about economic predictions, prices and technology advancements leading some to ultimately favor mandates over free market realities."

Well, I'm not an economics professor. . . but when unemployment is at 10.2 percent, and a solar company hires an administrative assistant, I think that's completely relevant and should not be trivialized because it may or may not fit into a safe definition scribbled on a bluebook in a college classroom.

And if these guys were really all that concerned about the government favoring mandates over free market realities, than they would've kicked and screamed about the trillions of dollars we shell out in fossil fuel subsidies every year.

But there's no need to spend any more time on this one. The fact is, this particular study has already been picked apart and called out for exactly what it is: a hack piece.

Besides, we have some fantastic new green job numbers to report on today — thanks to a new Green Jobs study from the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) and Booz Allen Hamilton.

Green Building Supports 7.9 Million U.S. Jobs

According to this latest Green Jobs study, green building will support 7.9 million U.S. jobs and pump $554 billion into the American economy — including $396 billion in wages — from 2009 to 2013. The study also found that green construction spending currently supports more than 2 million American jobs and generates more than $100 billion in GDP and wages.

Of course, we've been singing the praises of green building for years.

In fact, I can remember back in 2005 when I told Green Chip readers about the "latest" numbers from McGraw Hill, which put the total value of green construction at $10 billion!

In 2008, that skyrocketed to between $36 and $49 billion. And according to McGraw Hill, 2013 estimates put this market at between $96 and $140 billion.

My friends, not only are we talking about enabling very necessary job creation, but we're also talking about the kind of growth that enables huge opportunities for investors.

Since we launched Green Chip, we've covered (and profited from) green building plays in:

• Solar

• LED Lighting Systems

• Energy Efficiency and Conservation

• Water Reclamation

• Environmentally-friendly Paints, Coatings and Sealants

• Sustainable Building Materials

And as the green building movement continues to grow, so will our opportunities.

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

Jeff

P.S. As an interesting side note, this new Green Jobs study also found that from 2000-2008, the green construction market realized $1.3 billion in energy savings. Energy savings forecasts for 2009-2013 come in at $6 billion.

P.P.S. Nick will be in California this week, checking out GreenBeat 2009. In addition to Al Gore and Vinod Khosla, Nick will be meeting with plenty of smart grid executives. . . getting the inside scoop on the smart grid so he can deliver even more profits for his readers.

Located in Phoenix, initial production capacity will come in at 30 megawatts. Production is expected to start in Q3, 2010.

This particular plant is expected to employ 75 full-time workers.

Also in solar, industry research firm iSupply updated its forecast on the oversupply of solar panels, stating that the glut could be resolved next year. Initially iSupply forecast the oversupply to last throughout 2010.

Of course, based on strong demand in Germany, and new subsidy-driven demand in the U.S. and China, we're not surprised. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at the subsidies in the U.S. and China and realize that any solar glut will be short-lived.

And finally, the Spanish government announced on Friday that it plans to bring 8.8 gigawatts of renewable energy generating capacity online by 2012. 5.3 gigawatts will come from wind, and 1.5 gigawatts will come from solar.

Jeff

Good news came from a variety of sectors this week. I'll do my best to cover it all.

Monday began with a long-awaited announcement from the Environmental Protection Agency. Thanks to the Clean Air Act, the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases as long as it finds they "pose a danger to human health and welfare."

The Federal agency could do it in a variety of ways, including with cap and trade or a carbon tax. And it can do it whether Congress approves it or not.

The EPA has already submitted its decision to the White House. We'll know the results pending a review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Again on the emissions front, Monday saw the announcement of merger talks between carbon trading specialists Trading Emissions (TRE.L) and Leaf Clean Energy (LEAF.L). According to reports, any deal would "create the largest carbon-focused company listed in London."

This comes only a week after JP Morgan bought another major carbon player, EcoSecurities.

Any chance they're gearing up for a post-Copenhagen environment?

Perhaps. We know Obama is. He announced this week that he'll attend if it means getting an agreement signed.

But the most beneficial news came from the least likely of places: The International Energy Agency.

In its annual world energy outlook — one of the most respected industry reports — the IEA found that, unless a climate deal is reached, the following will occur:

• World energy consumption will rise rapidly over the next 20 years, pushing up costs and increasing greenhouse gases;

• The world will have to spend an extra $500 billion to cut carbon emissions for each year it delays implementing a major assault on global warming;

• Increases in fossil fuel costs could double energy bills in the largest consumer countries.

Those findings should send a strong signal that it's time to regulate emissions, if not for environmental reasons, then for economic ones.

Turning now from policy to equities. . .

This week's mixed solar news highlighted the importance of Green Chip coverage.

JA Solar (NASDAQ: JASO) and Yingli Green Energy (NYSE: YGE) each reported good earnings, while their peers Energy Conversion Devices (NASDAQ: ENER) and GT Solar (NASDAQ: SOLR) lagged.

Being a member of our premium publications would've certainly given you a heads-up, and helped you prepare accordingly. I've been guiding toward JA Solar and Yingli for months now.

We're gearing up for an onslaught of solar earnings next week, including from major players like Suntech (NYSE: STP) and Trina (NSYE: TSL).

Bullishness could ensue, as there was other good solar news on the Street this week.

Taiwan solar firm Sino-American Silicon said it expects wafer shipments to rise 30% in 2010. And respected research firm iSuppli was out with a report showing thin film modules "will more than double their share of the solar panel market by 2013."

Stay tuned to Green Chip next week to see how it all plays out.

As always, I've included any articles you may have missed from the week below.

Call it like you see it,

Nick

First Wind Utah: Private Company's Wind Farm Largest in Utah
Green Chip Editor Sam Hopkins reports on Boston-based energy developer First Wind's completion of Utah's largest wind energy project.

It Is Easy Being Green: A Paltry $500 Investment Turned to $27,395.3
Playing the stock market nowadays isn't easy. . . but it is when you know which sector to cash in on, and whose advice to follow. Nick Hodge's "R-Track System" is set to close more than 60 winners this year in the renewable sector. You can join him. . .

Smart Grid Stocks: Wires, Lights, and Energy Networks
Editor Nick Hodge discusses smart grid stocks. . . and what's in store for the sector in 2010. . .

IEA Climate Change: IEA Climate Change Scenario Indicates High Cost of Inaction
Green Chip Editor Jeff Siegel poses the following to readers: for those who oppose any kind of meaningful action on global climate change, consider the latest findings on the cost of inaction.

Uncle Sam's Piggy Bank: Gov't Will Award $11.3Bil in Stimulus Dollars to Select Group of Companies
The stimulus is a pretty sizeable piggy bank. This we know. But what you may not know are the specific companies to which the gov't plans on allocating these dollars. . . and how this will drastically affect their company stock. Read this report to learn how you can cash in on Uncle Sam's allowance for these companies.

Brazil's Upcoming Wind Energy Auction

ProInfa, the national renewable energy incentive campaign, will help integrate 2 GW of wind energy capacity at a cost of about $6 billion by 2012. The companies that get ahead in the December auction will have to move fast to get capacity up by 2014, which means more production, higher profile, and higher share price.

The New York Times cites Pedro Perreli of the Brazilian Wind Energy Association's amazement that overall, 441 proposals for over 13.3 gigawatts in Brazilian wind power have come in already from companies all over the world. That more than doubles what government and local industry officials anticipated!

Green Chip International readers are already profiting from two Brazilian clean energy and infrastructure stocks, and we're watching the run-up to Brazil's wind-only auction closely.

I'll also be in Peru soon, visiting wind power facilities and talking with people with knowledge of how these deals get done across South America.

Don't miss the next play — check out GCI for yourself and start investing in energy solutions to avoid future blackouts!

Regards,

Sam Hopkins

First Wind, based in Boston, has finished building Utah's largest wind energy array near Milford.

From Massachusetts to rural Utah to Southern California, the Milford Wind Corridor buildout will advance the interests of First Wind, other connected companies like Wisconsin's engineering and construction firm RMT, and important local governments with ambitious clean energy targets.

The 203.5 MW wind farm led to $86 million in total spending and created hundreds of jobs during its first phases, and ongoing maintenance & operations will provide employment and energy security to the Milford area and the wind farm's customers.

As it happens, Utah's biggest city—Salt Lake City—is not the primary city-level consumer base that First Wind has lined up to tap its new western capacity.

The 97 turbines at Milford will generate power for the Southern California Public Power Authority under a 20-year purchasing power agreement (PPA) that guarantees energy to the SoCal grid and revenue to First Wind.

The city utilities of Pasadena and Burbank are also directly involved in the Milford project, and all parties involved are proving that top wind energy companies can be connected to hungry power markets and can be financed amply—Royal Bank of Scotland arranged $376 million in project financing for First Wind and its partners.

We'll keep you up to date with this important step in making the cities of the Southwest cleaner and less prone to power outages.

-Sam Hopkins

Just a few weeks ago, Obama made a big public announcement about the $3.4 billion being used to install smart meters in 18 million homes and offices around the country.

That sum will be divided by 100 different projects in grants ranging from $400,000 to $200 million.

Not only could this mean a new smart meter for your home. . . it could also mean a windfall investment opportunity.

Because that $3.4 billion will soon be paid to companies that specialize in making smart meters, automated substations, advanced transformers, and all the software that goes with them.

These are the same smart grid companies we've been following for years here in Green Chip Review.

A Bold Prediction Come True

In the last trading week of 2008, I told you that "2009 is being hailed as the year of the smart grid." In that same article, I showed you a chart of three smart grid companies. Here are those companies and what they were trading for late last year:

• Comverge (NASDAQ: COMV), $4.46

• Echelon (NASDAQ: ELON), $7.60

• EnerNOC (NASDAQ: ENOC), $7.04

And here is their 2009 performance:

Each has at least doubled. And the biggest winner, EnerNOC, has gone from low $7s to mid-$30s — more than a 300% rise.

Year of the smart grid, indeed.

Smart Grid in 2010

Of course, 2009's performance doesn't do you much good if you weren't invested. So let's make sure you're ready for what's store in 2010.

For starters, the smart grid is now a major investment theme. While early investors enjoyed near-universal bullishness, today's smart grid success will require more research and knowledge of unexploited opportunities.

To be clear, I wouldn't expect EnerNOC to climb another 300% in the next 12 months. Instead, we'll have to seek out the next round of smart grid winners.

And I have a few ideas in mind. . .

The masses are currently infatuated with smart meters. And that's understandable, since that's the technology the administration and the media have chosen to focus on.

To stay one step ahead, we'll now have to focus on smart grid sectors that will receive secondary and tertiary benefits.

Wires, Lights, and Energy Networks

The introduction of smart meters is only the first leg of the smart grid profit race.

Remember, executives from both GE and Cisco have alluded that the smart grid will be bigger than the internet. That means there's still a lot of development and profits yet to come.

And, since the smart grid is essentially "the Internet for energy," networks are quickly emerging as a central theme.

In a nutshell, this means all of your devices will eventually communicate with each other and with the utility. Substations, meters, appliances, chargers, and lighting systems will soon all be smart, meaning they'll store information and share it to ensure maximum cost and energy efficiency.

The next round of profits will come from the companies taking these networks from theory to reality.

This will surely benefit companies like ESCO Technologies (NYSE: ESE) and Telvent Git (NASDAQ: TLVT). ESCO offers two-way power line communication systems along with the matching software and support. And Telvent specializes in IT solutions for energy management.

Lighting is also going to play a crucial role.

There's opportunity to be had in the transition away from incandescents and toward fluorescents and light emitting diodes (LEDs). And profits will also come from making entire lighting systems more efficient, say in a parking garage, office building, or grocery store freezer.

Companies like Cree Inc. (NASDAQ: CREE), among many others, are already making this happen.

And finally, there's a host of companies pursuing other niche smart grid opportunities. In this coming energy Internet, there will be plenty of demand for switches, routers, wires, and other specialized devices.

The world may have found out about the smart grid in 2009. But 2010 can still be your year to profit from it.

Call it like you see it,

Nick

P.S. I'm heading to GreenBeat next month, self-described as the seminal conference on the Smart Grid, bringing together leading entrepreneurs, investors, utilities, technology executives, and policymakers to accelerate the development of a leaner, more efficient electrical grid. I'll share everything I learn upon my return. If you'd like to read more about the event, click here.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the world will have to spend an extra $500 billion to cut carbon emissions for each year it delays implementing serious action on global warming. This would be on top of the $10.5 trillion investment needed from 2010 to 2030 to boost renewable energy development and improve energy efficiency.

Of that $10.5 trillion, the IEA states that about 45 percent, or $4.7 trillion in investment will be in transportation. Just one more reason we continue to remain so bullish on the electrification of our transportation infrastructure, mass transit and high speed rail.

The IEA report also pointed out that to continue current trends of energy demand and burning fossil fuels would lead almost certainly to massive climate change and irreparable damage to the planet.

Of course, if the international community does take significant and decisive action on climate change, the IEA scenario shows that - in regards to transportation - by 2030, conventional internal combustion engines will represent only about 40 percent of vehicle sales, with hybrids taking up 30 percent, and the rest being taken up by plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles.

We remain bullish on the premise that the international community does move forward - despite heavy lobbying that seeks to deter or at least slow progress on climate change legislation. There's too much at stake - politically, environmentally and economically - to assume otherwise.

Jeff

Last week ended strongly when a report surfaced showing that solar executives from Suntech, Sharp, and BP are "bullish on 2010."

First thing this week, Republicans took away that sentiment by deciding to boycott Senate Committee work on the climate change bill. Citing cost concerns, all seven Republicans on the Environmental and Public Works committee failed to show.

Inaction prevailed as a theme early in the week. . .

On Tuesday, stories were circulating about EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and his doubts about establishing a full-fledged climate deal next month in Copenhagen.

But by midweek, things were looking up. . .

Ford, Kraft, Cisco, and Toyota all posted strong earnings.

And British climate expert Nicholas Stern came out in defiance of Barroso, claiming there is a "very good chance" of establishing a firm treaty in Copenhagen.

Further good news came from the Blue Green Alliance, which issued a report Wednesday showing that "U.S. clean energy legislation could help create 850,000 manufacturing jobs around the country."

Then on Thursday, the world's second-largest producer of geothermal energy announced a plan that could put them in the top spot. The Philippine government announced a geothermal expansion plan that could attract up to $2.5 billion in private investment.

And finally, to complete the week's about-face, Senate democrats on Thursday ignored the Republican boycott and rammed the climate change through committee without them.

According to committee Chairman Barbara Boxer, the move was a "great signal for Copenhagen that there's a will to do what it takes to advance this issue."

You can catch up on the rest of the week's events by checking out more Green Chip coverage you may have missed, below. . .

Enjoy your weekend,

Nick

The U.S. Army's New Solar Power Plant: Why Uncle Sam is Building a "Green Coalition"
Editor Sam Hopkins takes a look at the U.S. Army's new drive to make bases energy-independent and how global green companies play a major role.

Climate Change Debate: Climate Change Debate Furthers Complacency
Editor Jeff Siegel discusses climate change legislation on the Hill and how it has proven to be exactly what we should have expected all along: a partisan bickering match. . .

A Tiny Chinese Battery Company: What This Still-Little-Known Outfit Means for the World's Fastest-Growing Car Market
Imagine investing in Ford, before the Model T. . . Volkswagen, before the Bug. . . or Toyota, before the Camry. . . Multiply this investment by a factor of 10 — that's what's going on in China right now. We'll reveal the battery company that you don't want to be last to know about.

Sanyo Solar: Sanyo Solar Costs Could Drop by as Much as 33%
Green Chip Editor Jeff Siegel updates readers on Sanyo Solar as the company could be able to cut the cost of its solar panels by as much as 33 percent.

China Wind Power: Commerce Secretary Says China Will Lift Local Wind Requirement
Editor Sam Hopkins updates readers on news that China is moving to allow more parts from foreign manufacturers to be included in the Middle Kingdom's domestic wind power projects.

The Industry Set to Rule the 21st Century: World's Economic Powerhouses Prepare to Cash in with Cleantech
One month from tomorrow. . . corporate giants, high-ranking officials, and powerful politicians will meet in Denmark to discuss the future of this sector. Find out exactly how you can gain a profitable foothold in a market that knows no borders. 

Wind Energy Stimulus: Will Wind Energy Stimulus Funds Go To Chinese Manufacturers?
Green Chip's Jeff Siegel talks about why Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) wants the Obama administration to reject an expected request for stimulus funding for a new wind farm.

Lithium-Ion Battery Stocks: The Billion-Dollar Battery Backbone
Energy and Capital Editor Nick Hodge details the market for lithium-ion battery stocks, including his pick for the best lithium stock for the next five years. . .

Dr. Jason Bradford, the biology brains behind Farmland LP (more on that here), ticked off a few of the key vulnerabilities of the U.S. food system in his presentation on sustainable agriculture:

• Commercial agriculture consumes 10.3 quads (quadrillion BTUs) of primary energy in order to produce 1.4 quads of food energy. The inputs are mainly fossil fuels used in running tractors, producing artificial fertilizers, producing seeds, trucking, refrigeration, processing, freezing and cooking.
• Commercial agriculture not only depletes non-renewable resources and degrades soil, air, and water, but it also releases 5 billion pounds of harmful chemicals and massive amounts of greenhouse gas emissions into the environment per year.
• Animal waste provides critically important fertilizer to small distributed farms, but in the modern massive feedlots of concentrated animal populations it becomes an environmental hazard. All the feed transported to the feedlots uses petroleum fuels, and the hay is grown using ancient "fossil water" pumped from deep, essentially non-renewable aquifers.
• Over the last four decades or so, runoff from commercial agriculture has resulted in massive "dead zones" near our shorelines caused by algae blooms that suck the oxygen out of the water and create anoxic environments where nothing can live. (The dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico has grown to an estimated 8,500 square miles.)
• Just three crops comprise 71% of U.S. crop acres: corn, soybean, and wheat.
• Monsanto, Pioneer, and Syngenta —all basically chemical companies — dominate the seed industry with patented GMO seeds. Those seeds are finely tuned to the temperature, rainfall, and so on of the recent past, making climate change a major threat to the whole food regime (more on that here).
• Likewise, a handful of giant companies now control the vast majority of the food supply system — a stark contrast to the millions of small family farmers who dominated it prior to the 1960s.
• Nearly all of the food delivery system uses just-in-time inventory methods, so there is only one to three days' supply at any point in the distribution chain.

In short, Bradford explained, we have built a complex food supply system with very low diversity and strong connectivity. Yet in nature, those characteristics lead to instability. Stable systems are highly diverse with weak connectivity. The very complexity and interconnectedness of our food web is, in itself, a dangerous vulnerability.

Bradford aptly compared our blithe faith in the food supply system to "the hubris of Wile E. Coyote" just before he realizes he's about to plunge into the canyon.

The Energy-Water Nexus

A presentation by Michael Webber of the University of Texas at Austin emphasized another important interrelationship: We use water for energy, and energy for water.

Nearly all power plants are thermoelectric heat engines — they use heat to produce electricity (the notable exceptions to this are hydro power and solar photovoltaics). Although there are many variations of the process, here's a simple explanation: A source of heat is applied to one side of the engine, which causes the expansion of a gas. The expansion of the gas makes a turbine spin, generating electrical power. The heat is then dumped by the cold side of the engine, which causes the gas to condense again.

Water is typically used to remove the heat on the cold side. Air-cooled plants are also possible, but they are less efficient because they're less cold, and so water-cooled plants are far more common.

It should come as no surprise, then, that the largest user of water in the U.S. is the thermoelectric power sector, accounting for 48% of the total water withdrawal and 39% of freshwater withdrawals.

The first vulnerability of the energy-water relationship is what happens when insufficient (or insufficiently cold) water is available: It forces power plants to scale back, or shut down altogether, which has happened at numerous coal- and nuclear-fired plants around the world over the last few years.

Webber believes that droughts could even close nuclear power plants in the Southeast permanently due to limited water.

On the flip side, Webber noted that roughly 10% of electricity in the U.S. is used for waste and wastewater, including end uses. But in denser, larger states the energy load can be much higher. According to a 2005 study by the California Energy Commission, fully 19% of the state's energy use is related to pumping, treating, transporting, heating, cooling, and recycling water.

The energy-water nexus includes liquid fuels as well as electricity. Net energy researcher David Murphy noted at the conference that the EROWI (energy returned on water invested) is 228 for petroleum diesel, but only 0.024 for corn ethanol, because making it requires massive amounts of water.

Producing liquid fuels from low-grade resources like tar sands and oil shale also requires enormous amounts of water to produce steam and fracture shale. Vince Matthews, the director of the Colorado Geological Survey, expressed his doubts at the conference that his state's shale resources would be developed because of the water dependency. The "head" of the state's water supply is dropping by about 30 feet per year, he said, and has been falling for 20 years. He expects it to hit the aquifer around 2011.

Finally, we must not forget that most of the Middle East is investing heavily in the desalination of seawater to provide adequate fresh water for its burgeoning population (and of course, its indoor ski slopes). Desalination requires over 9,800 kWh per million gallons, according to Webber. I can easily imagine desalination becoming a major factor in the declining oil exports from the Middle East.

On the energy-water nexus, Webber made two important conclusions: first, we need to rethink transportation; and second, water conservation and energy conservation are synonymous.

Peak Credit = Peak Oil

Gail Tverberg, energy analyst and editor of The Oil Drum, discussed the financial side of complexity in her presentation, describing the economy as a highly-networked system of great interdependence: manufacturing depends on international trade; businesses depend on credit, manufactured goods, and electricity; electric utilities depend on credit and on replacements parts, and so on.

There is a systemic risk in highly-networked, interdependent systems she said, like a computer crash: one thing stops working, and everything else stops working. International trade and finance and credit, for example, are closely linked with oil extraction. It's not coincidental that consumer credit peaked in July 2008, just as oil production peaked. . .

Credit enables oil production, and also enables demand for oil, by allowing consumers to buy things made with and from oil. Conversely, shrinking oil supplies limit economic growth, leading to the kind of defaults we saw this past year. When banks cut back on lending, it leads to less supply and less demand.

The net impact of credit on oil is that it provides positive reinforcement for oil extraction when it's growing, and negative reinforcement on the way down. Peak oil equals peak credit, and peak credit equals peak oil.

Therefore, Tverberg concluded, our complex systems' vulnerabilities to peak oil extend far beyond mere fuel supply. Our current model of food production may cease to work. Our current model of transportation may cease to work. Globalization will fail without ample cheap liquid fuels, making re-localization a necessity. And ultimately, without all complex systems we take for granted today, we will likely be forced to accept a much lower standard of living.

Simplify, Simplify

Simon Ratcliffe, an energy advisor for the UK government and an expert on energy and security in Africa and South Africa, offered this graphical depiction of some of the interconnected risks he has studied in those nations:

Source

Just reading a chart like that makes you want to turn away and latch onto a simpler view, doesn't it? Well, keep that in mind and we'll return to it in a moment.

The problem with complex systems of course is that they're. . . well, complex.

No one can model demand accurately, and no one predicted that oil would hit $147 and $33 in a span of six months last year.

No one has a good model for the feedback loop from GDP to oil demand, oil demand to price, price to supply, and supply to GDP — let alone the influence of new Frankenstein financial instruments and monetary policy.

No one has a good model for how much fossil fuel we'll need to build the renewably-powered infrastructure of the future, let alone how we'll procure it in a scenario of shrinking global supply. (In fact, hardly any models even contemplate the reality of depletion.)

No one seems to recognize that although the population growth curve led the energy curve on the way up, energy will lead population on the way down.

Even the historical data is all from an era of constantly growing energy supply, making it a poor guide to the future.

A quick aside: In a presentation to the World Future Society annual conference this year, David Pearce Snyder, an editor of The Futurist magazine, argued that schools are not equipping students with the necessary skills to deal with complexity, and that new curricula are essential to surviving the modern world. I agree completely.

So how can retail investors navigate this increasingly complex and chaotic world?

My guiding lights here include the likes of E. F. Schumacher, Paul Erlich, Paul Hawken, and Thomas Malthus — they were right, if a little (or a lot) early. And of course Henry David Thoreau, who exhorted us to simplify.

They would tell us to focus on simplicity in our investing strategies: Think locally, not globally. Small and distributed is more resilient (and more beautiful) than big and centralized. Using less energy to accomplish the same thing will succeed over trying to produce more energy. Imitating nature's low-energy, low-impact, non-toxic methods in our industrial activities — a study now known as biomimicry — will succeed over inventing wacky new chemicals that nature has never seen before.

From now on, we should let the K.I.S.S. principle be our guide: Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Until next time,

Chris

P.S. As you may know, Green Chip's Nick Hodge has been making a killing by following a simple investment strategy. By focusing only on cleantech stocks, he's been able to close a winner for his readers every single week this year. In fact, he's even taken several double-digit gains from the very sectors I discussed today: water and energy efficiency. And he thinks his next pick — a tiny Chinese lithium-ion battery play — could be one of his biggest yet!  

Editor's Note: This article is Part 4 of a series of Chris's reports from the 2009 ASPO Peak Oil Conference. See also Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

According to the report, more renewable energy generation came online in 2008 than in the entire 2003-2007 time period. And forecasts show that new installed capacity in 2009 will almost match the amount that came online in 2008.

And Sanyo announced yesterday that it's planning to increase investment in its battery and solar business. This news comes as the company moves closer to being acquired by Panasonic.

With the completion of this expected takeover, Panasonic could become a major player in hybrid car batteries and solar power.

Meanwhile, now that Sanyo is making more of its own silicon and initiating other strategic moves, the company could be able to cut the cost of its solar panels by as much as 33 percent by the end of next year.

Jeff

Well, now it looks like Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), wants the Obama administration to reject an expected request for stimulus funding for this particular wind project because it could end up generating Chinese jobs - not U.S. jobs. According to the Senator, if approved, the funds would be used to buy turbines and other components made in a Chinese plant.

Certainly I agree that stimulus money should be provided for projects that create domestic jobs (especially in the manufacturing sector). But it will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

I suspect that part of the whole deal hinged on Chinese manufacturer, A-Power Generation Systems providing the turbines. And I can't imagine the Chinese will set up manufacturing facilities in the U.S. just for this one project.

It's actually quite frustrating when you think about it. After all, we have fantastic wind resources in Texas, yet at this point, the only folks willing to pony up the cash to develop this particular project are in China.

Don't get me wrong. If China wants to invest in these projects (and make huge profits) because we can't seem to get it done - so be it. Because the bottom line is that we need to build out our renewable energy mix and strengthen our electric infrastructure now. Not tomorrow. And if China's willing to step in because we won't - well, that's on us.

And don't kid yourself. China already has a huge stake in all of this anyway. Whether through turbines, solar panels and batteries or the rare earth elements that are necessary to build these things - China's influence on OUR energy economy is real...and it's massive.

Of course, it's no secret that the opportunity for renewable energy development in the U.S. is huge. And if a Chinese company wants to invest in a Texas wind farm or set up shop here in the United States, and use domestic workers to manufacture this stuff - I'm all for it. Certainly that's what companies like Vestas, Gamesa and Siemens have done.

But with unemployment likely to remain at unacceptable levels for years to come, we can't afford to lose out on a single job.

That being said, if we don't get our act together soon and start getting aggressive on providing the necessary funding and manufacturing for our own renewable energy development - rest assured, someone else will. With or without stimulus funds.

Jeff

And it's now becoming a force in renewable energy's worldwide expansion.

Far from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Department of Defense is setting its own target list to achieve energy independence for the Army's biggest bases.

First, California's Fort Irwin has just begun a multi-year march toward 1,000 MW in solar energy capacity and self-sufficiency from the desert sun.

Fort Irwin Goes Solar

No one would think you were crazy if you thought Fort Irwin — the Army's biggest training camp — was a Middle Eastern outpost. As a matter of fact, the Mojave Desert complex plays host to a sort of mini-Iraq, where hundreds of Iraqi actors are employed by DoD to accurately play out urban fighting scenarios soldiers may encounter during deployment.

Its 1000+ square miles of barren landscape also make Fort Irwin an ideal place to test aircraft, artillery, tanks. . . and even solar power.

In this map from the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL), you can see that Fort Irwin's location smack-dab between Las Vegas and Los Angeles also puts it right in the middle of the country's highest average daily solar radiation: over 7,500 Watt-hours per square inch.



Those conditions mean you've got to drink a lot of water during training exercises, and you can bet air conditioners are whirring all day long nearly year-round. . .

So the Army commissioned Irwin Energy Security Partners — comprised of Spanish energy and infrastructure company Acciona's solar power division and Virginia-based Clark Energy Group — to reduce the drain Fort Irwin exerts on local generators like Hoover Dam, and to bring a massive power supply improvement inside the base boundaries.

The Army's International "Green Coalition"

You may not expect to see Madrid-traded Acciona (MAD: ANA) on a roster of the U.S. ground force's top energy developers. But Acciona's North American operations, which include water desalination and wind power, give the Spanish company a firm domestic base that the Pentagon sees as favorable to its own efforts. Acciona North America has its headquarters in Henderson, Nevada, just outside Las Vegas.

For the Fort Irwin solar power project, Acciona has teamed up with Clark Energy Group, an energy services company based in Arlington, Virginia, just outside D.C.

Clark is able to navigate the bureaucracy and get Acciona's concentrating solar power (CSP) technology into the military power mix.

A combination of solar thermal power and photovoltaic (PV) technology will contribute 500 MW of capacity by 2022, at a cost of about $2 billion. That should make Fort Irwin energy-independent as far as electricity is concerned.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Army officials have hinted at selling some of that output to area grids — especially if the solar plant is expanded to a full gigawatt under the Army's Enhanced Use Leasing (EUL) program. The EUL is the military equivalent to Public-Private Partnership (PPP) arrangements that many emerging countries and cash-strapped cities have used to launch infrastructure improvements.

Under the EUL, which is administered in Baltimore, Irwin Energy Security Partners will lease Army land to install and operate the solar power plant. The consortium will cohabitate with the military with the goal of landing more contracts as the Pentagon shifts to sustainable energy on its bases.

Out in the brightest, driest reaches of the United States, more international clean energy companies with American HQs may find themselves involved in the Defense Department's "Green Coalition."

Israel's Ormat Technologies has its main North American offices in Reno, Nevada, just north of Fort Irwin. Ormat (NYSE: ORA) is already drawing steam from the ground to drive geothermal electricity generation throughout the West, and inclusion in Army energy plans could give another shot in the arm to Ormat shares, which are now holding just above support levels at $36.

Be it Acciona, Ormat, or another company that gains the most from the American military's forays into security through clean power, one thing is certain: the U.S. is now building an international coalition on renewable energy like none we've seen before.

We'll keep you up to date on which international green companies are set to benefit.

Regards,

Sam Hopkins

International Editor

P.S. Nick Hodge and I just issued another successful recommendation to Green Chip International subscribers. That's become the norm for GCI, as our current open positions now average a 45.9% gain. As for the ones we've closed out. . . they did even better — with a 58% payday. And we're working on more winners for you as we speak. Just take a look at this GCI special report today so you don't miss the next one: Profiting from International Clean Energy Expansion.

Climate Change legislation on the Hill has proven to be exactly what we should have expected all along - a partisan bickering match comparable to playground scuffles I recall from my elementary school days.

On cue, the Republicans moved to boycott this week's work session on a climate change bill, stating that they want more time to study the EPA's economic analysis. Interestingly enough, these folks had nothing to say when the Bush Administration used the EPA as a pawn in the game of delaying serious climate change debate. But you know how it is - it's all politics.

Certainly we saw much of this kind of behavior from the Democrats during the Bush years. It's really not much different.

That being said, the request for more time to review the EPA's economic analysis is nothing more than a stall tactic. There has been plenty of time for everyone to review the EPA's findings. They're just not happy with the results because the results further erode the argument that climate change initiatives will put us in the poor house. It's not true, and anyone who wants to be honest about this, knows it's not true.

Of course, I won't lie. This whole cap and trade concept plays out as a very complex system that seeks to achieve a goal which can be achieved without it.

The best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to go full force on renewable energy and transportation alternatives (like electric vehicles and rail), cut all subsidies for the petroleum industry (don't think for a second that what you're paying at the pump is the appropriate price for that gasoline) and figure in ALL environmental costs in any type of power production. Some folks want to roll their eyes at that one. So come talk to me after the last bit of remaining fresh water we have has been polluted by tar sands operations and mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants.

Listen: We can sit here all day and debate energy costs. But when the air's toxic and the water is no longer safe to drink - debate on energy costs will be irrelevant. Just ask the Chinese. Not only are they pouring billions into renewable energy development, but they're also funding new renewable energy operations here in the U.S.

And what are we doing? Oh, we're playing partisan games, telling folks that requiring utilities to cut their carbon emissions will hurt the economy.

No my friends. What hurts the economy is our continued reliance on oil, the never-ending environmental costs involved with our reliance on coal-fired power, and the continued utilization of a crumbling infrastructure.

And let's not back away from the real issue here. Any costs related to any kind of pollution stemming from power production should be considered operational costs anyway. If you make a mess, you clean it up. If it ends up costing the consumer more. . .well guess what - that's the price of power.

We've become dangerously accustomed to insanely cheap power because for far too long these costs have been externalized. But they still exist. They didn't just disappear because some politician handed off the problem to someone else. And maybe it's about time we pay the REAL cost for power production, anyway. After all, this would certainly encourage alternatives. And in the long run, we'll all be better off economically.

Think about it: The costs of producing and burning fossil fuels will only continue to go up. But the costs for renewable energy will continue to fall for decades.

It's about investing in the future, folks. It's about not being OK with complacency and handing off this burden to future generations.

Enough with partisan dust storms. Enough with misinformation campaigns and political prejudices. Enough with denials.

The future is going to be powered by renewables. Conventional fossil fuels are extreme environmental and economic strains. And anyone who's willing to look at this honestly - without the influence of political motives - knows this is true.

So the choice is ours. Continue walking down the path of complacency while the rest of the world embraces progress, or take a stand for future economic and environmental prosperity. But make no mistake, if we miss this opportunity, we're dead in the water in twenty years. A second-rate nation with a great history of accomplishments, but one major, game-changing regret.

Jeff

My response was simple, upset a lot of people, and has since proven to be pretty accurate. . .

"They're going to bury us!"

I don't say this to disregard all the progress we've made here in the United States. Certainly, we've come a long way over the past few years. And there are some excellent renewable energy companies operating domestically.

But the fact is China's desperate need for more domestically-produced power that doesn't further degrade their dwindling water supplies or pollute their air — which will give your eyes and lungs a good burn on a stagnant day — is a major catalyst for renewable energy growth in the Middle Kingdom.

This is why the Chinese government is ponying up billions in support for solar, wind, and electric vehicles. Because without these things, future growth will absolutely be stalled. They know it. . . the big money knows it. . . and if you're a long-time reader of these pages, you know it, too. . .

In the meantime, the Chinese continue to pump out solar modules cheaper than anyone else; their largest wind turbine manufacturer, Sinovel, will likely become one of the world's largest wind turbine manufacturers; and — as we're finding now — if you need billions in financing for a wind farm, China may be more than willing to provide that, too.

Laying the Groundwork for Alternative Energy Development

Last Thursday, China marched into the Lone Star State with $1.5 billion for a 600+ megawatt wind farm.

The project is actually a joint venture with Cielo Wind Power, U.S. Renewable Energy Group, and Shenyang Power Group. When completed, it will provide enough power for about 180,000 homes. Chinese turbine manufacturer A-Power Energy will be supplying the turbines.

Here's what Jinxiang Lu, Shenyang Power Group's CEO had to say about the project: "With a long track record for building some of the world's biggest wind farms, the U.S. is an ideal target for foreign alternative energy investment."

And he's right.

But this is no secret. . .

Sure, it was just last week when Energy Secretary Steven Chu told reporters that the U.S. was falling behind China and others in alternative energy investment.

But we've been reporting on this for years.

And let me tell you, you don't have to be the Energy Secretary to know that foreign corporations have been aggressively laying the groundwork for alternative energy development in the U.S.

Heck, just over the past two years, Spanish wind energy powerhouse Gamesa (MCE: GAM) has built four new wind turbine production facilities in the States. Siemens (NYSE: SI) has a rotor blade manufacturing facility in Iowa and they are currently building a turbine production facility in Kansas. And Denmark-based Vestas (CO: VWS) is now building two new manufacturing facilities in Colorado.

My friends, companies like these don't throw down hundreds of millions of dollars to build out manufacturing in the U.S. without some certainty that there's a big pay day involved. . .

And investors who ignore this fact will continue to miss out on one of the greatest investment opportunities of the 21st century.

Like our latest wind play, for instance. This one could be an easy double in six to eight months.

It's a wind energy developer based in California that could get a huge boost in about eight weeks, after California's new renewable energy mandate goes into effect.

You can read more about this wind company here.

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

Jeff

As it stands, Beijing requires that 70% of the components in wind energy turbines erected around China be produced by factories within the country.

Locke couldn't say exactly when the rule would change, but after the 20th U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade, America's top industrial diplomat did indicate that a policy shift is on the way.

That will be a boon to American wind energy component producers like American Superconductor (NASDAQ:AMSC), whose stock rose by over 10% in the week from October 26, compared to a 3% decline for the S&P 500.

China's loosening of domestic manufacturing requirements for wind power is also part of a bi-national wind power exchange that involves companies of all sizes.

In Texas, a consortium just announced a $1.5 billion Sino-American joint venture between Shenyang Power Group, Cielo Wind Power, and the U.S. Renewable Energy Group, a private equity fund. That collaborative effort will bring turbines from China to the Lone Star State via Chinese turbine maker A-Power Energy (NASDAQ:APWR).

Look for more news soon on the growing exchange in U.S. and Chinese wind power infrastructure expansion and the wind power stocks that could profit.

-Sam Hopkins

It was yet another good week for cleantech, with bullish news coming from both the financial and political realms.

Here's what went down. . .

On Tuesday, the President made the largest single Recovery Act announcement to date, dedicating $3.4 billion to further advancing smart grid development. The money — paid in grants of up to $200 million each — will go to pay for as many as 18 million smart meters across the country.

That announcement sent many smart grid stocks to one-day, double-digit gains. It also foreshadowed great earnings in the same sector. . .

Seemingly on cue, Enersys (NYSE: ENS), Itron (NASDAQ: ITRI), and American Superconductor (NASDAQ: AMSC) all released positive earnings reports this week. The latter climbed over 20% in one day!

(As an aside, I've closed one of those stocks for profit in the Alternative Energy Speculator, and the other two are still open.)

And the good news didn't stop there, as cleantech continued to prove it can combat recession, create jobs, and stoke portfolios. . .

German solar firm SMA Solar Technology announced it is opening a $22 million factory in Colorado. Fisker Automotive announced plans for spending $528 million to overhaul an automotive manufacturing plant it bought from the now-bankrupt GM as part of a stimulus-funded deal.

In fact, the results of cleantech funding have been so fruitful that Obama signed another spending bill into law this week — a bill that will push another $33.5 billion into everything from solar research to energy efficiency and flood control.

Just hours later, Obama's signing was followed by a Reuters report stating that solar executives from Suntech, Sharp, and BP are "bullish on 2010." According to the report, "Executives cited various forces that could drive growth in 2010, including U.S. stimulus funds for green projects, extended tax incentives and new financing."

Of course, we'll be ready to capitalize on that bullishness as it plays out.

In the meantime, you can catch up on the rest of the week's top-read stories from Green Chip and our sister publications below.

Enjoy your weekend,

Nick

What are Global Acres?: Global Acres & Ecological Footprints
Green Chip Contributing Editor Emily Rutan defines global acres for readers and discusses what our total world ecological footprint means for the planet's biocapacity.

Solar Rights: A Solar Bill of Rights
Green Chip's Jeff Siegel reports on the Solar Power International Conference this week, as the Solar Energy Industries Association details a "Solar Bill of Rights."

Smart Grid Investments: A Smart Grid Recap for Investors
Energy & Capital Editor Nick Hodge discusses smart grid investments by compiling his recent works on the subject. 

Super Start-Ups: Get In Now on this $297-billion- a-year Market
Tech giants like Cisco Systems and Google will share billions of gov't stimulus dollars and make tens of billions in profit as the smart grid develops. . . but the real money is in start-up companies. There's still profit to be had in these super start-ups. . . if you act soon.

Solar Energy Stocks: The Truth about Solar
Editor Nick Hodge discusses solar energy stocks, including the rampant misinformation disseminated about the sector. 

Veolia Environnement Stock: French Company's Water and Transit Projects Boost the Big Easy
Editor Sam Hopkins reports from New Orleans on the city's continuing Katrina recovery efforts and the French company being paid to finally get the job done.

23 Energy Companies You Should Know About: Share Prices to Pop from Gov't Slush-fund Boost
Knowing how much funding each company gets — and when — will be worth its weight in gold. We'll share with you this little-known list of companies in line to receive big dollars, and how you can profit from their government funding.

Smart Grid Development: $3.4 Billion for Smart Grid Development
Editor Jeff Siegel discusses the government's plans to award $3.4 billion in grants for smart grid development, and billions more in private investment dollars that will also go to the awarded companies.