Clean Tech Investing-the Economic Opportunity of the Century

So in the last few decades, there was the internet boom, biotech boom, real estate mega boom, now there will be a alternative energy boom.

There will be some innovation involved, but the predominant beneficiaries of the alternative energy boom will be the giant corporations(ie... GE with wind and solar, BP with solar, Japanese kyocera and sharp, utilities who are open to alternatives.)

In other words, don't expect a new micro cap 'clean tech' company to emerge as the next microsoft.

Also, I don't think of it as a boom. It's more like a "we need more energy, but we can't stay the course of fossil fuels." So the giant corporations as mentioned from above will use their lobbying/political power to push their profit-making agenda and creep on to the turf of the traditional fossil fuel energy providers.

 

Don't forget about all of the installers, designers, and retailers. Not to mention the royalties paid to farmers et al who let wind farms be installed on their property.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Jan 4 2007, 07:15 PM) [snapback]371030[/snapback]</div>

Sure they have some say but these guys are just pawns. If there's real money to be made in this hypothetical boom, the "strategery" will be contrived through the will of corporate america.

 

They're not pawns. They'll make money as a direct result of shift towards cleaner power generation. Of course corps will have a huge say in how things are implemented. They're the ones investing the capital and designing the products. It's the collective voice of the people, however, that convince the corps that there is a viable market worth investing in. There's nothing new there. That's how a capitalist society operates.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Jan 5 2007, 01:16 PM) [snapback]371332[/snapback]</div>

Ok "pawns" was hyperbole, but nonetheless the retailers, designers and installers livelihoods depend on the say so of the corps. These guys don't get to decide whether the industry will thrive or not, cause your right, they are the ones with the capital.

As for consumer demand, that sometimes is overrated. There was a demand for electric cars, but GM said no. They also did the same thing to the rail industry. Both instances the goal was to force ICE vehicles on the consumer and make the consumer think that was all he/she needed and nothing else.

 

If there was substantial demand for evs there would be a market. In the late 90's oil was at $10 a barrel. The situation is different now. Furthermore, there was WAY less awareness about climate change. The EVs time is yet to come and when people clamor for them they will be built.

Look at the CFL market. GE jumped on the walmart offer because they had to. Sure they'd make more money with incandescent bulbs but they know the writing is on the wall. If they don't jump on it someone else will. Why? Because there's a lot of demand. The same is not yet true of EVs. The auto mfgs only made them (well, just Ford, GM, and Toyo) because they were forced to by CAs ZEV mandate. There's not even a substantial EV market in Japan (that I know of) and their fuel costs are considerable higher than ours and their geography is better (not to be confused with topography). The biggest draw backs are the lack of fast charging and the otherwise slow recharging. Yes we could overcome this issues but they've yet to be overcome. Until something forces the issue there won't be a mass market, just a niche market.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Jan 5 2007, 07:37 PM) [snapback]371574[/snapback]</div>

Chicken and egg. Even though some people want EV now, I agree that the demand isn't yet substantial. However, if they mass manufactured it and marketed it appropriately, you could artificially drive up demand.

Take the SUV for example. Your average american does not NEED an SUV(as opposed to just a car). The old station wagon can pretty much serve 99% of the needs that SUVs provide. But through creative marketing, the car companies convinced americans that they needed SUVs. The car companies were more than happy to comply with this artificial demand, a demand which they created. And why not? A few inexpensive modifications to a truck, and ta da, you have an SUV with the concomitant suv-premium-profits. So, yes the SUV demand was there(not so much now), but was it started by the public or was it initiated by the car company?

I agree with you, in the long run the market eventually will sort itself out. I feel the hybrid/ev/hybrid pluggin will eventually replace the conventional vehicle. Toyota saw this and decided to invest for the next generation. The shortsighted american companies sacraficed the next generation investment for today's profits and are now paying the price. But you can see how if you're big enough you can temporarily manipulate the demand to one's own end, even to the detriment of the customers.

Thank goodness toyota existed, otherwise we might still have SUVs being shoved down the our throats.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jan 5 2007, 06:48 PM) [snapback]371593[/snapback]</div>

An EV would serve 95% of the needs of 80% of the population. But with SUVs and Minivans the sales pitch has been "more". The EV doesn't offer "more". If offers "less" (namely it costs less to operate and is a helluva lot more sustainable). People buys cars in a very emotional way. The decision is rarely very rational. SUVs met the demand for more space, power, and off-road capability. Nevermind the fact that most of that was rarely actually needed (that's where the marketing comes in).

Until people realize how badly we're screwing ourselves it's not going to get better. It's coming though. People are more and more aware of it. We'll just have to be patient and keep the pressure on our elected officials.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Mar 19 2007, 04:16 PM) [snapback]408549[/snapback]</div>

Might as well just buy GE. They do solar, wind, and cfc light bulbs.