Investing in Renewable Energy

Published in Investing on 2 November 2010

We look at wind, solar and other alternative energy sectors.

Last week I wrote about the theme of investment in the nuclear sector.  This week it is the turn of alternative and renewable energy.

Renewable energy includes solar and wind power, and a host of other technologies including tidal, hydro and geothermal power, biofuels, and biomass, the raw materials from which biofuels are derived.  Clean or alternative energy -- at least as far as index providers are concerned -- also includes natural gas.

Drivers

The growth of renewable energy and the resurgence of nuclear power are driven by similar global forces.

Growth in the global population and improved standards of living are expected to increase world energy demand by 34% over the next 20 years according to the International Energy Agency, requiring investment of €800 billion each year over that period.

At the same time supplies of fossil fuels are running out, or at least getting more difficult and expensive to extract. In addition, governments are grappling with two challenges: guaranteeing energy security and reducing carbon emissions.

Chalk and Cheese... and Gold

Nuclear and renewables both offer solutions to global energy needs, but as far as investment is concerned they are chalk and cheese.

The nuclear sector is highly concentrated. Governments are its customers, and the barriers to new entrants are very high. In contrast the renewable sector is characterised by numerous alternative technologies within each segment, populated by a large number of competitors, varying in scale from small to large.

And whilst governments also act to stimulate the renewable sector, they do so primarily by offering incentives rather than by ordering plant themselves.  The fickle nature of this generosity can play havoc with the profitability of the renewable sector. Both Spain and Germany have seen reductions in the feed in tariffs (the payments for privately-generated electricity) and concerns about similar moves were voiced in the UK ahead of the comprehensive spending review.

The end result for investors is that the renewable sector compared to nuclear is somewhat like gold mining compared to coal: you have to search hard to find a nugget, but the outcome of a lucky strike is potentially much more rewarding.

Wind

Companies in the wind sector are larger, reflecting the large scale of investment required in establishing off-shore and on-shore wind farms.  Major players are the Danish Vestas, Spanish Gamesa, Siemens and GE.  

Increasingly turbine manufacture is shifting to Asia, driven by the huge Chinese market.  There is fear of over-capacity which will drive down margins and hit profits.

Solar

The solar sector is more fragmented. These companies are less vertically integrated, and domestic and commercial scale installations do not require massive levels of investment.  Domestic solar generation is far short of generating electricity as cheaply as conventional power stations (so-called grid parity) and so the market is highly geared to government subsidy, generally in the form of feed-in tariffs.

Generous subsidies which fed growth in Spain and Germany have been reduced.  But new incentives have been announced by the Italian government and by the UK, through the Clean Energy Cashback scheme, which has stimulated the UK sector.

Increasingly the commodity end of the photovoltaic market is likely to consolidate around the large US and Chinese manufacturers. However that might make some of the more technologically interesting UK companies tempting acquisition targets.

ETFs

ETFs provide a way of capturing the global sector theme.

The ETFS DAX Global Alternative Energy Fund (LSE: ALTP) tracks the 15 largest companies worldwide which generate more than half their revenues from one of five sub-sectors: natural gas, solar, wind, ethanol (a biofuel) and geothermal/hybrids/batteries.  Each sub-sector comprises roughly 20% of the index. The inclusion of natural gas means that BG Group (LSE: BG) and the giant Russian gas producer Gazprom form significant holdings.

iShares S&P Global Clean Energy (LSE: INRG) has a broader remit, tracking the 30 largest companies globally that are primarily engaged in clean energy related business.

Finally Powershares Global Clean Energy Fund (LSE: PSBW) tracks the Wilderhill New Energy Index.  This is even more broadly spread, with 87 constituents engaged in energy conservation and efficiency as well as generation and use of cleaner energy, none of which can comprise more than 5% of the index.

Companies

Whilst most of the major companies in the sector are foreign, there are a host of smaller UK players in the sector.  David Holding has recently highlighted some interesting companies including PV Crystalox (LSE: PVCS), Romag (LSE: ROM) and Alkane (LSE: ALK), but there are many others.

There is also scope to invest in the unlisted sector through the Foresight Solar VCT which so far has raised 19% of a target £40m.

To use the gold mine analogy, it's time to start prospecting!

More from Tony Reading:

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

UncleEbenezer 02 Nov 2010 , 11:47pm

Haven't you overlooked an investment much closer to home?

Not everyone is a homeowner with a convenient roof facing somewhere near-ish to south. But some fortunate Fools have that kind of opportunity!

hollybank1942 03 Nov 2010 , 3:06pm

Beware! Wind farms are unreliable and inefficient and just ways to extract huge subsidies from the taxpayer. Eco-evangelists, politicians and crooks ( like Al Gore) say Human Carbon emissions will cause global warming and catastrophic climate change. CLIMATOLOGISTS, like Prof Bob Carter say human carbon emissions have an insignificant effect on climate. Sooner or later the scam will cease to work - so be careful which renewables you invest in - Of course we need to use fuel more economically but carbon fuels ( gas, coal and oil) will drive all economic growth and activity for the foreseeable future.

TRhere 03 Nov 2010 , 3:22pm

I hadn't really thought of home improvements as being part of my remit... but I maybe wouldn't be doing you any favours by mentioning it as the govt has said it will review the feed in tariffs early if take up is higher than expected!

Tony Reading

Eebagum 03 Nov 2010 , 3:40pm

Why no mention of geothermal, ground source heat pumps? The Scandinavians have been using these for over 40 years. I understand they are reliable even in the coldest and darkest of winters.

Samadd 03 Nov 2010 , 4:48pm

The solar panels on your roof will give you a return of about 6 - 8% at todays feed-in tariffs. If you move the panels stay. The risks are that they may not increase house value by their cost and that the tariff may be reduced. I have chosen not to take these risks despite having a roof which can take 3 times the narmal set of domestic panels(decreasing installation costs per panel).

Scandinavians also have much higher levels of insulation than is normal in this country. Vertically bored ground source heat pumps are expensive to install and have a limit to their heat extraction rate depending on setup. Good idea in general for newbuild combined with high insulation and underfloor heating. not so good retrofitting to existing houses.

shinygoldcar 03 Nov 2010 , 6:22pm

Hey are we all talking about solar heating panels (or vacuum tubes) or are we talking about photovoltaic? I'm under the impression that solar heating can pay for itself without subsidy, such as feed-in tariff, but numbers provided by different groups are inconsistent. One community I came across had solar vacuum tubes installed, expecting to get their money back in savings over about eight years, but because of the rise in energy costs they got their money back in six...
Photovoltaic I hear are not so economic were it not for the subsidy...

UncleEbenezer 04 Nov 2010 , 9:44am

shinygoldcar, I was deliberately leaving that question open: either is an investment opportunity, though the returns are, as you rightly point out, very different.

But it seems knuckledraggers see red mist at any suggestion of harnessing non-polluting energy ...

UncleEbenezer 04 Nov 2010 , 9:54am

Erm, I meant to add to the above ...

I think the best opportunity of all comes in flats, where a communal solar heating+hot water system (metered per flat) is a huge gain. I lived in a flat with a communal system in Germany as long ago as 1985/6, and it was seriously good.

I've seen two small developments (9 flats and 12 flats) go up locally in the five years since moving to my current address. Both have substantial south-facing roofs, and I consider it a crime to have build them without such a system.

mcturra2000 04 Nov 2010 , 1:40pm

"The fickle nature of this generosity can play havoc with the profitability of the renewable sector."

Ah, there's the rub, isn't it.

I've always had my doubts about this renewable energy stuff. If it is so great, then how comes government stimulus is necessary?

shinygoldcar 04 Nov 2010 , 10:25pm

I've got an interesting link here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315711/Wind-farm-power-twice-costly-gas-coal.html

It is a news article by the Daily Mail, who are anti-wind. They are criticising offshore wind power, saying that it costs 15p/unit, more than oil/gas (8p/unit) and nuclear (10p/unit). But then they say "A unit of electricity from an onshore wind turbine costs 9p, the report says."

So an anti-wind newspaper concedes that onshore wind electricity is cheaper than nuclear!

While renewable energy is not always the cheapest energy available, it isn't always unviable without government subsidy.

shinygoldcar 04 Nov 2010 , 10:35pm

On a different note, I've been keeping an eye on a FTSE-250 company called Hansen Transmissions International NV. They make gearboxes. They have just sold off their industrial gearboxes, but their other plants make wind turbine gearboxes. Share price is 50p. Tangible book value is 0.77 Euros. They've made profits 4 out of the 5 previous years, the exception being last year. The loss last year is smaller than any of the net profits from the other years. This year might be similar to last.

Anyone got an opinion on it?

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as http://www.fool.co.uk as opposed to www.fool.co.uk.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.