• Print
• E-Mail

LR: Global warming helped to mobilize public sentiment and government policy. It's hard to know, but at this time the momentum has shifted so firmly in favor of alternatives that it really doesn't matter. I firmly believe that the cost of the alternative energy forms will drop quickly enough that they will become economically viable, and in many cases provide cost advantages over traditional energy forms. Alternative energy will get cheaper as more implementations lead to reduced costs through economies of scale. In addition, there are many technological improvements in the development stage that will have a big impact on cost. In addition, the huge effort being mobilized in that direction will continue to reduce costs.

TER: Peak oil/peak natural gas is fueling the demand for investment in alternatives fuels due to the assumption that as we reach the peak, the prices for these fuels will increase, making energy unaffordable. If the peak for oil/gas is not a reality for another 50 years, will there be enough return for investments in alternatives?

LR: Peak oil is here in the very near future. Many of the big oil producing regions have already passed peaks. Don't forget, the United States was the world's largest oil producer for a period, but production has fallen way down. Experts who follow this industry are very clear that the peak is not too far away - at most a dozen years, but more likely much sooner. The pace of new discoveries has fallen way off over recent years. It takes an enormous amount of new drilling to simply replace depletion. Production from existing wells declines steadily. Production won't drop off suddenly, but it will certainly stop rising. Demand is continuing to rise and we are so complacent about oil production continuing to rise.

TER: What alternative / technology opportunities will emerge first as successful companies/sectors?

LR: Nuclear will be a big part of the move away from carbon fuels, whether people like it or not. Wind and solar are gaining importance, but at present on the basis of "feed-in tariffs," in effect subsidies. Geothermal is also looking very favorable. At present, geothermal only works in a few places. New technologies are expanding the applicability of geothermal. Solar is an area where there is huge potential for new technologies to impact on costs.

TER: You mentioned earlier that wind and solar are not currently economically viable sources and rely on subsidies. What is the likelihood that Federal subsidies run out before the technologies are developed to make these sources economically viable? How should individual investors look at these segments?

LR: If you are looking at a producing company, then you have to look carefully at the specifics of the company and its revenue projections, taking into account whatever subsidies may be in place. We all know that the subsidies won't be around forever. That is exactly why we are focused on companies that are developing and enhancing technologies. The new technologies are vital. The flip side of this is that producing companies could lock in subsidies based on today's cost structure and then bring in new technologies in the future that bring costs way down.

TER: Two years ago there was a rapid increase in uranium fueled by the projected number of nuclear facilities being built around the world and speculation of a shortage of uranium supplies. Subsequently, uranium prices have fallen and many nuclear facilities have been stalled due to the economic recession. Given this, in what timeframe do you see nuclear beginning to increase as a percentage of energy output? What is the investment strategy for this sector?

LR: There is still a looming shortage of uranium. The 400 or so reactors in the world now in operation get about 40% of their fuel from Soviet-era nuclear warheads being converted to fuel grade. The agreement under which Russia is converting uranium and supplying material to the West runs out in 2013. Russia does not intend to extend that agreement, as they will need more material internally. Another hundred reactors are planned over the next decade or so. Uranium mines can't be developed fast enough to bridge that gap. Nuclear energy will continue to increase, but it is unlikely to increase as a percentage of energy output. It will do little more than keep pace with the overall increase in energy output.

TER: Since coal is in abundance in the U.S. it seems natural that there would be some technological advances in this area. Have you heard of any?