On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 11:53:45 -0500, you wrote: > After reading this article and trying to look at it both ways > what's the situation with global renewable energy investment ?
I don't know the full picture. I can give a couple of quick pieces of info or annecdotes, but they aren't really sufficient for more than 5% of the overall picture. First, as much as those of us who are sort of sci-fi dreamers want to believe that this or that exotic exciting technological innovation may be critical make-or-break to the increase in renewable energy adoption, a lesson I take away from recent wind business in the states is that one simply cannot ignore the mundane and critical realities of day-to-day financial concerns. In a conversation the other day with an RE guy, he mentioned the ongoing importance of the recently-renewed-by-congress tax benefit for Wind Energy. I don't know exactly how this works, but he was very enthusiastic about how certain permutations of this were allowing for selling related investments (such as bonds or near-bonds) to the traditional conservative inestor-types. Second, another VC person mentioned to me the other day that one effect he's seen is not necessarily the drying-up of capital in response to the recent risk-reminders we've seen (i.e., a crash of the stock markets) but some working-together. He gave an example that with a $5,000,000 investment, you might now see five different firms sign on for $1,000,000 of the risk rather than any one firm taking it on entirely. I spoke to another person who gave a lecture to one of the renewable sectors, to folks seeking investment, and his message was that the recent calamity [firms who'd already succeeded in getting their investments, then went IPO, had their stocks crash horribly] had a few lessons for it for new firms seeking investment. This includes that they can expect a lot more scrutiny from those seeking to invest. I.e., over-the-shoulder scrutiny can be expected. Perhaps also a message was that the lone-inventor genius types who typically may be at the CEO level once the investment is gained can expect some rougher treatment as they are after all not necessarily capable or the right person to lead the firm in all aspects of business, finance, accounting, critical management decisions, etc. I'm projecting some of my own beliefs here, but I believe they are somewhat consitent with the beliefs of this person. I realize that these annecdotes don't give dollar-figures and don't give a general idea, but they're what I've run across recently. I think the answer to whether or not things are dried-up-entirely is "no" but that is an answer that I will still be looking for over the next few years. In my probably utterly ignorant opinion VC for renewables has always been paltry compared to Capital for traditionals, as covered nicely in the article you referenced. Thank you for it. Also it is evidenced in the [adverb+gerund expletive deleted] attempt by the Bush Administration to give $30 billion or so in tax breaks to oil and gas concerns in their ANWR proposals and maybe a few billion to renewable research and what else. My God that is a lot of money proposed to *give* to those oil and gas firms! For what?! How did they earn that money? By waiting for too many years? Ok, that would be a decent point, but how does it help the *country* *now* to give *that* much money away? And why is it assumed that the money would not be better given away to other industries. My goodness, think what could be done by Solar PV factories with $30 billion dollars! Never mind that a tax break amounts to forgiving debt rather than a direct giveaway. It is still a type of giveaway, where other taxpayers will have to make up the funds that are forgiven by the OIl and Gas makers, and it really upsets me to see this continued proposal still out there by the House, as though it is unquestionable and ok. This is being proposed by the *supposed* advocates of free markets, the *supposed* enemies of sociliasm and subsidies (how is a tax break *not* a subsidy?... it is damn close, except that it waits for some supposed work to be done before it gives away the money), and it is going largely unquestioned that it is the very best way to allocate subsidies, ignoring that there are probably dramatically better technologies to invest in, if the governors of the country wish to change their stripes and start socializing the energy industry (which I do not advocate, but they have apparently partly already done, whether they acknowledge it or (doubtless) not.) Funny, but the enemies of socialism in the past would probably have made a point of saying that as soon as you start getting the government involved in running things, it will have to make choices and those choices will not only be subject to endless public bickering and debate, but will also probably cause a lot of damage and problems that might otherwise be dealt with perhaps a bit better by competitive markets. How is this favoritism toward fossil fuels by *government* lending a way of allowing for renewable technologies to compete in free markets, as the advocates always *say* they want? ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Will You Find True Love? Will You Meet the One? Free Love Reading by phone! http://us.click.yahoo.com/7dY7FD/R_ZEAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
