This is interesting, after watching the collapse in the last two years of entities like the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), which ended trading with a bag of charcoal briquettes being worth more than a ton of carbon futures, we have some clear evidence that the promised “green technology revolution” is headed for the scrap heap of history.
Ironically, it might be related to Mann’s hockey stick.
More on that later. First, here’s a description from the RENIXX website of what it is:
The RENIXX® (Renewable Energy Industrial Index) World is the first global stock index, which comprises the performance of the world´s 30 largest companies of the renewable energy industry whose weighting in the index is based on the market capitalization (free float).
“Free floating”, has just become “free falling”:
Since 2008, the index has lost about 90% of its value. In the last month, the nosedive seems to be accelerating:
Starting around May 10th, it seems the index has taken a steep drop, like an inverse hockey stick. Compare that to the graph they offer in their prospectus presentation:
The 2006 index got a boost, probably from from Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, released on May 24, 2006. 2007 was a banner year, and 2008 held the high ground, but look what happened in late 2009, coinciding with Climategate. I’m not saying that Climategate was the sole cause of that crash, as correlation isn’t causation, but it is most interesting. They haven’t updated the prospectus because as Steve McIntyre points out in his latest post on Schmidt’s “Conspiracy Theory”:
In the mining exploration business, investors who trade mining stocks know that “late” results are almost never “good” results. The reason is human nature. In public stocks, you’re legally obligated to report results promptly, but there is some play in timing. If promoters have “bad” results in the first part of the program, there is a great temptation to delay the bad news in the hope that later results will bail out the program. The best and only way to deal with temptations to delay bad results is to establish an announcement schedule ahead of time and stick to it.
That probably explains why they have not updated their online prospectus brochure, hoping that later results will “bail out the program”. I think that ship has sailed.
I found it also amazing that in their prospectus, they use Michael Mann’s IPCC hockey stick as a reference graph:
It would seem to me that any organization that would use such bad science as a reference for investors is destined to fail, and here, it seems that betting on Mann’s hockey stick isn’t working out.
Maybe investors read WUWT and Climate Audit. I wonder if it is too soon to use this cartoon:
h/t to The Hockey Schtick, who points out the number of dead and dying green companies:
Filed Bankruptcy:
Solyndra
Beacon Power
Ener1
Range Fuels
Solar Trust of America
Spectrawatt
Evergreen Solar
Eastern Energy
Unisolar
Bright Automotive
Olson’s Crop Service
Energy Conversion Devices
Sovello
Siag
Solon
Q-Cells
Mountain Plaza
Teetering on the Brink:
Abound Solar
A123 Systems
Brightsource Energy
Fisker Automotive
First Solar
Nevada Geothermal
SunPower
Nordex
The Bard Group
Amonix
NRG Energy
Alterra Power
Enel Green Power
Sunpower Corp
You Americans were a little bit late for WW11 but thank god you came and any Brit with half a brain still thanks you from the bottom of our hearts for the sacrifices you made. The fact you stole our women still makes us a little bit grumpy!
“Overpaid, oversexed and over here” was the saying at the time I believe.
Respect!
As several posters have pointed out, the big fall occurred a year before Climategate, and it actually coincides with the banking crisis. It would be interesting to plot as a ratio compared with, say, the S&P. Compared to the broader market, this fantasy green market will still show a dramatic fall.
.
There’s an amusing piece in today’s printed Daily Telegraph. A council erected two wind turbines on the roof of one of their buildings, partly in order to inform the people about renewables. Unfortunately they generated just £2000 worth of electricity in one year, while costing around £6000 in repair and maintenance costs in the same period. They are now going to be removed.
As the editorial pointed out, this was a perfect public information exercise on the ‘benefits’ of renewables.
Chris
Obama makes PV 30% more expensive. Tariffs for Chinese imports, retroactively introduced for all imports since three months ago.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012/05/18/china-criticizes-us-solar-trade-decision-says-may-hurt-us/
Re:
Now just “overweight”.
WRT my “overweight” comment above, this is probably unfair. My Dad was a pilot instructor during WWII, and he and his contemeporaries deserve respect for what they did. After the war he was a successful teacher and school administrator. But as retirement neared, the banes of a prosperous nation … t.v., soda pop, bad eating habits … all these things took a toll. Actually, my generation behaves worse than they did.
As late as last year, Yahoo was promoting these companies. In April, 2011, they published a compilation of alternative energy exchange-traded funds (ETFs), which they call
The Top 10 Exchange Traded Funds for Investing in Alternative Energy Here’s their pitch.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Alternative-Energy-ETFs-The-wscheats-1447372332.html?x=0&.v=1
I checked the value of these stocks a few weeks ago. At that time, an investor who had created a portfolio of these alternative energy stocks when Obama took office in 2008 would have lost around 72% of his investment by now. Here is a sample portfolio with one hundred shares of each of the five top recommendations from the 2011 Yahoo article. I’ll show the values of each stock: 1) at the date of stock’s inception 2) In May, 2011 (date of recommendation by Yahoo); 3) April, 2012:
STOCK @ur momisugly Inception May 2011 April 2012
PBW $1,997 $964 $504
FAN $2,900 $1,100 $715
GRID $2,933 $3,360 $2,685
PWND $2,324 $1,046 $637
TAN $26,584 $8,100 $2,214
TTL $36,734 $14,570 $6,755
The investor would have 18% of his original equity investment remaining. His loss would be 72%.
you’ve probably noticed that gas prices have skyrocketed in the last few months
gasoline has gone up, but natural gas has gone through the floor. The price of coal isn’t doing too well either, but that is due to government (EPA) constraining demand for coal-fired electricity.
And how does the Solar Industry feel about the Anti-Dumping (PV) Decision-
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/solar-industry-reacton-to-the-anti-dumping-decision/
…………”Tom Gutierrez, CEO of GT Advanced Technologies, with another 500 solar jobs in the United States, stated, “Today’s Department of Commerce decision subsidizes a German-owned company to the tune of an average 31% tax on its competitors and potentially harms U.S.-headquartered companies like GT Advanced Technologies, Dow Chemical, REC Silicon and MEMC. Ultimately, protectionism fosters dependence and high-cost business models, rather than the innovation and agile approaches required for companies to succeed in the global marketplace. Now is the time for the U.S. solar industry to move forward with the development of advanced technologies that create jobs and enhance our energy security—in spite of this new barrier. American solar manufacturing can compete without special protections.”………..
DirkH: Ok, it works in the Southwest of the US
That’s where I live, so that’s where my figures apply. For the time being I ignore capital costs. If, as I anticipate, the cost gets down to $0.05/kwh, then I’ll start including capital costs.
A note about PV power in Uganda:http://www.solardaily.com/reports/Eclipsall_Awarded_Contract_to_Supply_Solar_Panels_to_Ugandan_Government_999.html
DirkH: Ok – well, zero capital cost, don’t you think that’s ridiculous?
As I wrote, I’ll come back to that at some time. But meanwhile, does everybody here think that the cost of electricity from natural gas will not increase in the upcoming 30 years? My bet is that the cost of natural gas, and hence of electricity from it, will rise as the US starts exporting more LNG. If you are thinking of installing an electricity power supply now, you have to make some guess about the cost of natural gas in the upcoming 30 years. If you think it will increase, then the capital cost of solar is probably not the determining factor in the decision. And some people think that the uncertainty is worth some cost to avoid.
A note on unsubsidized solar power in Extremadura, Spain:
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/17/571-million-solar-power-plant-planned-for-spain/
Construction “could” begin in 2014? I guess we’ll have to check back then.
In the 1990’s they told me to invest in tech stocks, and I got wiped out.
In the 2000’s they told me to invest in financial stocks, and I got wiped out.
In the 2010’s they told to invest in green energy stocks…
I’m starting to suspect these financial advisers don’t have my interests at heart.
Thank you for the link – anticlimatic.
In the Netherlands the production cost of electricity using solar panels is approx 0.12 €/kWh (and becoming cheaper every year) and you can sell it to the grid at € 0.22/kWh. Yoy are really crazy if you don’t install solar panels. Therefore I really don’t understand the very negative attitude here at WUWT.
the sun does not shine when you need it. Like at the end of Corrie
only ever half time hand much less in the Netherlands.
The only reason to install solar panels is the subsidy unless you are warming water that you store
So you rip off your fellow rate- and tax-payers for € 0.10 for every kWh you produce. Nice!
So the more like you there are, the poorer the country gets. And you’re proud of it!
€ 0.10/kWh corresponds with a maximum of approx. € 350 per year per house. When you buy an averaged price house your tax benefit is at least € 5000 per year. That will probably make Holland one of the poorest nations in the world :-).
It will only take a few years to make PV power competitive with fossil fuel based electricity in the Netherlands. It is already competitive in the Mediterranean, unless the EU will impose import tariffs on cheap Chinese solar panels.
The 25000 MW PV power production in Germany (and still increasing) already has a lowering impact on the wholesale price.
Marinus
Electricity costs in Europe are double US ($0.11/1kWh); Germany ($0.3648/1kWh) is more than triple US, and the Netherlands ($0.2889/1kWh) are not far behind Germany. Denmark ($0.4038/1kWh) is the highest in the world, followed by Italy. Spain, land of sunshine and huge solar installations, is not far behind Italy at $0.2708/1kWh. France with its abundant nuclear power generation is the lowest in Europe at $0.1939/1kWh.
Solar, with its high cost of maintenance and installation, and full back-up from conventional power units, doesn’t make economic sense even if the PV panels were given away.
Wake up Greenie !!!! The sun only shines less than half the time at all usefully and a lot less than that in Northern europe
And when it shines (in Holland 1500 hours per year, mediterranean 3000 hours) it can provide cheap energy!!
Marinus- doesn’t Holland have some of the highest electricity rates in Europe? Isn’t the rate in Germany about 35 cents per kwh? Why would anyone in friendly economic competition with you drive up their own rates for this basic cost input? I understand (somewhat) why Germany is doing what it is doing but cannot fathom why we should follow suit in the US. I hope that the current situation is providing a “teachable moment” for Euro-fantasists such as youself. Best.
HIgh Electricity costs in NWE are caused by energy tax and VAT. Excluding taxes the retail price in Holland is € 0.07/kWh. Consumption exceding 10.000 kWh is taxed much lower resulting in a cost for the additional consumption of € 0.13/kWh.
It is the goverment’s aim to make installation of solar panels attractive for households. I am not going to discuss if that is a wise decision but it is a fact for already a couple of years. Three years ago the subsidy was even as high as € 0.30/kWh (for a limited number of households because of budget constraints).
As you now only pay for your nett consumption it is very attractive to buy solar panels. Pay out time (taking into account all costs including installation, maintenance and finance cost) is less than 10 years.
It might well be that the government will raise energy tax in the future to compensate for the loss in tax revenue when too many households install solar panels. That would make it even more attractive to install solar panels right now as it is pure economic decision. If you don’t install those panels you will eventually pay the energy tax of your neighbours!
That all means that solar panel business is growing here, however in Holland not as fast as in Germany. Unfortunately those panels are not produced locally as we can’t compete with China.