US green economy’s growth dwarfs the fossil fuel industry’s

Renewables, environmental, and efficiency industries grew 3x faster than fossil fuels.

Read the whole story

 

[real mikeb_60]

Renewables, environmental, and efficiency industries grew 3x faster than fossil fuels.

This is the dumbest thing I've seen from Ars lately. Of course an industry which barely exists is growing faster than a well establish industry. It's like during the "revolution" of the wheel replacing sleds commenting on how much faster the wheel is being adopted that the already established sled.

The swarm of ignorant posters babbling is impressive.

Dig deeper, grasshopper.

Strictly from a numbers standpoint the babbler is correct. Once any company or economic sector gets very big, it's extremely difficult to have growth that exceeds inflation. The stock market likes earnings and capital growth that exceeds inflation - in fact, with a few exceptions, it demands it.

Certainly, the (relative) newcomer will have fantastic percentage growth at the beginning. But that tells me that the Green energy companies are the places to invest for return rather than dividends, which is a good thing for both the bottom line and the environment. I should also disinvest (hard to do with mutual funds, but not impossible) in the fossil-fuel and related sectors, since the only way the established fossil fuel-based operations can make higher profits is to reduce cost - hence demand for fewer regs, more subsidies, less staff/more automation, disposal of non-performing assets (those coal plants and their supporting industries); the smart ones are doing that and reinvesting the proceeds in Green industry (companies that aren't totally dysfunctional like to survive).

 

[real mikeb_60]

Renewables, environmental, and efficiency industries grew 3x faster than fossil fuels.

This is the dumbest thing I've seen from Ars lately. Of course an industry which barely exists is growing faster than a well establish industry. It's like during the "revolution" of the wheel replacing sleds commenting on how much faster the wheel is being adopted that the already established sled.

The swarm of ignorant posters babbling is impressive.

Dig deeper, grasshopper.

Strictly from a numbers standpoint the babbler is correct. Once any company or economic sector gets very big, it's extremely difficult to have growth that exceeds inflation. The stock market likes earnings and capital growth that exceeds inflation - in fact, with a few exceptions, it demands it.

Certainly, the (relative) newcomer will have fantastic percentage growth at the beginning. But that tells me that the Green energy companies are the places to invest for return rather than dividends, which is a good thing for both the bottom line and the environment. I should also disinvest (hard to do with mutual funds, but not impossible) in the fossil-fuel and related sectors, since the only way the established fossil fuel-based operations can make higher profits is to reduce cost - hence demand for fewer regs, more subsidies, less staff/more automation, disposal of non-performing assets (those coal plants and their supporting industries); the smart ones are doing that and reinvesting the proceeds in Green industry (companies that aren't totally dysfunctional like to survive).

“Of course it’s easier to have fast growth if you’re tiny” is true, but renewables are not tiny, haven’t been in years — they had fast growth for a long time.

That's true, and it means that some of the more poorly-run operations are probably gone by now. They're still tiny in terms of total revenue compared to the fossil folks, but with the really bad operators out of the way it's still a good place to invest. I do see a probable m&a market soon, with the smarter Big Fossil Boys starting to buy up the renewable operators that have good returns and prospects - not to extinguish them, but to add them to the portfolio.

 

[real mikeb_60]

US green economy’s growth dwarfs the fossil fuel industry’s . . . (growth)

Your headline is very DECEPTIVE, purposeful so I think. The fossil fuel industry is a full grown industry and about the only growth it will have is as the population growths. That is the same as comparing a toddler to a full grown adult, yes the toddler's growth will dwarf the growth of the adult.

Renewables are in growth, but only because fossil fuels are in decline. Without renewables, there would be a lot more workforce in fossil fuels building replacement fossil fuel plants. Instead, they're out building new wind and solar.

both are in growth as energy demand increases, coal is in decline, and proliferation of LEDs has slowed demands a little, but right now while wind and solar tends to replace coal, nat gas is used to adjust to demand.

You are on to something. One of the reasons California energy bills haven't gone up as fast as energy rates have is conservation and efficiency. Not just the LED lights, but a lot of other efficiency improvements that are mandated in building codes and rules about what can be sold. It does increase prices somewhat, though not as much as you'd think if you don't take into account that everybody has to do it so there's some scale economy. The renewables push in CA wouldn't work without the efficiency improvements reducing overall demand.

 

[real mikeb_60]

Increased energy prices drive greater conservation.

If you're paying $0.30/kWh your payback on efficiency improvements is a lot faster than someone paying $0.10/kWh.

Very true. I'm on a municipal utility and until they did mandatory Time of Use rates (approaches $0.30/kwh in the summer 5-8 PM peak period) solar just made no sense. For my usage, it still doesn't, really - payback is likely to be 10 years or more. But in the private utility areas, things are much different, and many San Diego customers yearn for the days when the rate was as low as $0.30 - theirs can approach double that during summer peaks, especially for high users that get an added penalty rate.

An interesting point in CA is that the municipal utilities are not regulated by the Public Utilities Commission - the PUC only regulates the private utilities. So one of the things still in "discussion" with the PUC - connection charges separate from usage rates - has been standard in at least my utility for over 10 years (has crept up to about $25/month for everybody, not just net-metering users). So in the monthly bill that partially compensates for the lower rates charged for metered usage.