It's pretty surprising that corporate energy use has actually declined over the past six months. Looks like corporations are looking for ways to cut costs by conserving energy in these tough economic times. Maybe the trend towards becoming 'green' is gaining momentum in the business world.

I wonder how much of the "Less Energy" usage is due to the recession. It doesn't surprise me that solar is most popular alternative energy technology. After all, the sun shines just about everywhere!

The combination of the recession and $115 per barrel oil is no doubt forcing companies to get more aggressive about cutting back on energy usage. As Mike mentions, it would be useful to find out the degree to which the recession is impacting energy behavior. And will the greenishness fade away once the economy gets back on track?

The very strong numbers for solar are a bit of a surprise. Both the current level of use and the percentage projected over the next several years is really enormously bullish for solar energy companies. As for LEDs, even with the mandates, a big challenge for manufacturers is to raise lighting quality while driving costs down to levels more competitive with traditional bulbs.

We are an energy efficiency consulting firm, so these are the issues we confront every day. I think the most interesting statistic is that 57% or respondents are either very concerned or somewhat concerned about reducing energy use. This is encouraging, but since nearly every company can cost effectively reduce their energy consumption, we might ask why this number is not even higher.

My takeaway from the first graph is that energy use, overall, is not changing much. Most people used the same amount and fairly similar numbers used more as used less. Keep in mind also that few of the respondents probably know in detail how much energy their companies actually use. This is not to say that companies are not concerned - we definately see more concern now that we have in the past. We are getting many more requests for services. Most companies are at the early stages of getting serious about controlling their energy use.

I agree that LED and Solar are good investments to ride this wave. It should be clear, though, that these products are a very small part of the energy efficiency solution. Traditional energy efficient lighting (compact flourescent and T8 linear flourescent lamps), lighting controls (occupancy sensors and daylighting controls), efficient HVAC equipment, and HVAC controls are currently delivering orders of magnitude more savings than are LEDs or Solar. From an investment perspective, though, its less clear how to profit from those other technologies. Companies like Philips, Honeywell, Johnson Controls, and GE are not pure plays.

My tool & die Co. usess much less energy but it is not due to conservation; it is due to (expletive) NAFTA & GATT and the coup de gras (expletive) high tariff on foreign steel. Thank you Mr. Clinton.for signing those bills. I always new that you were environmentally oriented!
News item Feb.7/2008 entitled "The man who would save the world" tells of an invention called Hydro Generator(HG). When HG sits on a floating object such as a reconstituted derelect ship at sea, it uses the limitless energy and substance of sea waves to propagate useable hydrogen, continuously, night and day, 24/7. The only other effluvium is a kiss of oxygen for the atmosphere..
50 HGs in tandem on a ship torquing a universal shaft with 2 dynamos attached, one fore and one aft could produce megawatts of DC current, much of which could be used to elrctrolize sea`water into hydrogen and oxygen..
When one uses hydrogen to power one's car as Gov. Schwartzenegger is doing, he can drink what emerges from the tailpipe. It is called water.
We must also thank Mr. Clinton because he forced me out of manufacturing into R & D work which culminated in a device that just might save the world from global warming and more importantly, nuclear winter.
Jewelcraft Die Service........Bernard (Bob) Nadel...Prop.

I remember when the wind was very useful in pumping our water from the well. In this day of advanced technology, I can't understand why more offices are not equipped with lights that come on when a person enters the office and turns off when no one was there. That would save bundles.

It seems we have reached the point where being green is popular AND economic (even if the payout is longer than we would like). It seems to be gaining momentum, especially for lighting. The unit costs should continue to decrease, making it more economic. I do not see petroleum getting much cheaper, so there is no cheap alternative.

Fortunately for the natural gas industry a large portion of the electricity generated in this country is done so using natural gas.

Unfortunately there is a finite amount of this fuel available. I think the primary driver of the Solar and LED technologies are the high costs of traditional energy sources. Like everything else in this world only when something begins to hurt your pocket book do you attempt to find a less expensive alternative.

I am knowledgeable of energy services companies. They work, typically, in educational, governmental, and health care facilities on energy conservation projects. The unique feature of energy service companies (or ESCOs) is that they will guarantee energy savings over a state financing period. This allows the client to, in effect, redirect a portion of their annual utility payments to the financing payments of engineered projects that install energy efficiency improvements. This is especially attractive to governmental entities that have a limited budget with no money for capitol expenditures for improvements. The particular ESCO that I am most familiar has grown in excess of 50% per annum for last few years. What's the investment play? I don't think there is a pure play, as ESCOs are not typically public companies. Many are owned by larger companies such at Johnson Controls, Trane, Honeywell, and Chevron. Other names are Noresco, Ameresco, Custom Energy, TAC, and utilities like Sempra Energy.

OK, enough of the background. Where are ESCOs seeing building energy efficiency improvements? (BTW, buildings use about half of energy in the U.S.) A typical ESCO project will include lighting retrofits, domestic water retrofits, building HVAC controls systems, and installation of variable speed drives on pump and fan motors. Up to a few years ago, the lighting retrofit would primarily be changing from 40 watt T12 fluorescent lamps with magnetic ballasts to 32 watt T8 with electronic ballasts. Now, the conversion is to newer design T8s at 28 watts or less. Linear fluorescents are not being replaced with LEDs now. LEDs substitutes are more expensive and give off about half the light. I think we are still several years before LEDs become the primary lighting of choice. LEDs are now used in locations that only need to be seen -- such as exit signs, warning lights, etc. Another area with good payback is domestic water retrofits (toilets and faucets). Products in this area are manufactured by Sloan, Zurn, Elijer, American Std, and Koehler. Typically, toilets are being replaced to reduce flow from 3.5 gal/flush to 1.6 gal/flush -- a huge water savings. But one company that has a unique toilet designs and is now introducing in the U.S. a 1.3 gal/flush is Toto, a Japanese company.

ESCOs are getting more and more into broader areas, such as solar, wind, and biomass. But, without rebates and incentives, solar and wind do not typically have good payback. Solar has gone nuts in California, where Arnold offers rebates and incentives. In fact, Chevron is the largest installer of solar systems in educational facilities in California. With prices falling in solar, I expect to see more work in this area. There is huge wind potential up and down the middle of the U.S., but fortunately (or fortunately), this is coincident with the areas of the U.S. with the lowest electric rates. Also, no or limited government incentives. Kansas is ideally suited for wind, but the state offers no incentives. A big hurdle with wind is that at the times of highest electric demand, the wind is often the calmest (late afternoon). Biomass is an area that has not been exploited yet. Biomass can be agricultural, livestock, or municipal waste. Another is waste wood that can be burned to produce heating for buildings. As an example, waste wood can be obtained for $2.50 - $4.00/MMBtu, while natural gas is $8.00 - $12.00/MMBtu. Biomass boilers are typically manufactured by small private companies in New England, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

Yeah, I think we're just seeing the beginning of alternative fuel and accelerated energy efficiency. Eventually, I figure about two years, we'll see real impact in demand reduction of fossil fuel. And with that the price of oil will start falling if there's any reduction of tension in the Middle East. That is the other side of the ridiculous price of oil: the potential oil supply chain shutdown in the event of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Traders read the news and also read into the news. The drum beat for taking out Iran's nuclear bomb building capacity is growing louder by the week. If you noticed, in the shadow of the Pope visiting the WH, Gordon Brown, who is not too fond of GWB, was standing shoulder to shoulder with W in the Rose Garden denouncing Iran and saying it was a lie that Iran's nuclear facilities are for peaceful purposes. Both Cheney and Gates made trips to the area to consult with allies recently. Also, the resignation several weeks ago of the Central Command's Military Chief, who oversees all forces in the ME, after a publicized policy disagreement with W (he went on record advising the diplomatic solution in the face of the build-up of Naval forces in the Gulf) is an indicator that the US is on a war footing vis-a-vis Iran.

Whether it leads to an all-out attack on Iran's nuclear industry is a matter of speculation. But having taken out Saddam, turned a corner with N. Korea's Kim Jong II on their nuclear bomb building program, the last of the trio of the axis of evil, Iran, is in W's cross hairs and is considered now the biggest threat to the region and the world.

I have a strong feeling that 43 will not leave office with the overhanging threat of Iran's nuclear capability. He was totally against 41's decision to leave Saddam in power after the 91 Gulf War. Its a given that Iran will build a nuclear weapon in the not too distant future if their nuclear enrichment program is not destroyed. In that event, 43's legacy would be that he went into Iraq because of WMD which did not exist, but in the face of Iran's all-out nuclear bomb building program, he walked away from office leaving perhaps Barack or Hillary to deal with it! No way.

And I think the traders are reading it this way too. The recent run-up in the price of oil approaching 120 in the face of economic slow down in the US does not add-up. The traders are pricing in an attack on Iran and the ramifications of retaliation throughout the Gulf with the potential of oil exports being shutdown.

Also, bearing in mind the election season coming, Bush wants to get this over beforehand so its not an issue in the fall. I think as soon as Carter leaves the area, we'll see tensions resume and then anything can happen.

These business trends are no accident. The 'early adopters' of the new, low energy consumption world are on the move. They get it. The public in the USA does not yet get it, but they will. And typically, the government is slow to respond, even counterproductive. Imagine where we would be now if for the last 5 years we had been spending $1B per week on restructuring the country's energy sector instead of in Iraq. The price of oil would certainly be lower and we would feel less threatened by and less dependent upon middle eastern types who wish us harm.

Seven year payout for solar power too long for you? Think back 7 years - it was 2001. Not so long ago, but it was before the big runup in energy prices started. You would now be enjoying nearly free power. Where do you think the price of electricity, or oil, will be seven years from now?

Some time ago I saw a talking head on TV, a prof. from New York University, but he has provided the best summary of the issue I have heard so far. I am paraphrasing, " ...satisfying the energy demands of the growing global economy, particularly of the developing world, while at the same time reducing carbon emissions is THE technological challenge of the 21st century".

I think the guy from NYU is right. I have spent more years in the oil fields than Dick Cheney, and I can tell you that meeting demand will slowly get more and more difficult. Energy prices will continue to rise and investment in energy, production or conservation, conventional or unconventional, is a wise move. Business, whose job it is to be profitable, is starting to see the light.

Where I live I am also on the village environment committee. We have had workshops to bring together local builders and the USGBC to discuss various ways to get "green" building techniques implemented.

In these discussions, the major reason against using LED lighting was not actually cost, but rather the builders do not want to see ANY changes! They know now who they buy lighting from, and do not want to switch.

The vendors do not want to push LED lighting because it is new. They do not want to risk using something new with their existing customers! Which comes first. The chicken or the egg.

What we have seen is that on existing projects that did use LED lighting, the costs were well documented. The cost to buy the lighting was slightly higher, but the operating costs were significantly lower.

So it seems that using "life cycle" costs really are the way to get LED lighting out there.

Take a look at Two china names in these spaces. DGNG and APWR

The Hotel / Motel industries have found a pure play in Telkonet (TKO). They can adjust the heat and turn on lights when customers enter and leave the room -- all automaticaly. They also provide internet access to each room with a secure connection all done with Broadband over Power Lines (BPL). Monitoring of hallways and public gathering rooms are an added bonus.

Thats thinking GREEN.

Cree has unreliable management that is quite promotional and often can not deliver what they promise. That is the problem with retail letters like this one where the author is a generalist and not a hands on fundamental analyst who is skilled in company analysis. The concept is not enough. Getting the right investment is critical.

"I'd put my money on solar energy...I hope we don't have to wait 'til oil and coal run out before we tackle that."

- Thomas Edison, in conversation with Henry Ford and Harvey Firestone, March 1931