It seems that a day doesn't slip by without someone raising the stakes in the alternative-energy poker game.
The most recent bombshell wager: Cambridge Energy Research Associates report that alternative energy investments will -- hold on to your hats! -- top $7 trillion by 2030. That's an audacious number by any measure, and normally it would be enough to suck the oxygen right out of a convention of wind-farm enthusiasts. But that's not the half of it. The most startling aspect of the report is that it barely raised a ripple in the investment community.
And why should it?
There's been a steady drum beat of wild-eyed clean-tech forecasts for more than a year now. What's one more trillion-dollar log on the fire?
But CERA is no pump-and-dump stock scam operating out of an abandoned warehouse in Jersey. It's a respected global advisory group made up of serious economists and energy analysts and headed up by Daniel Yergin, a recognized energy expert and Pulitzer Prize-winning author.
Unfortunately, the report doesn't appear to break any new ground with its forecast -- it mentions that alternative energy is fast approaching mainstream application, that continued advancements in technology could rapidly speed both deployment and acceptance of clean tech, and that nuclear energy will play a large role in low-emissions power.
But it does add a bookend -- albeit an incomprehensible one -- to the debate about the direction and pace of the alternative energy sector by attaching a dollar amount to the size of the potential investment market.
By and large, much of the financial reporting on the alternative energy market has followed a similar pattern, focusing on investments by venture capital firms in green-tech startups, the green investing revolution, the inevitable collapse of the alternative energy bubble, or the dubious benefits of ethanol.
Few folk have been brave or foolish enough to venture a guess on the future girth of the alternative energy market. It's hard enough just to get a reasonable estimate of current investments, let alone to project out 20-plus years down the road. If reports are to be relied upon, 2007 was the high-water mark for investments in the alternative energy market in the U.S. and Europe. Last year, investors poured $5.8 billion into the industry, according to one report by the Cleantech Group. New Energy Finance, a London-based research firm, estimated $117 billion was invested worldwide by companies and governments in 2007.
Normally, I'd describe the difference between $5.8 billion and $117 billion as a yawning gap, but compared to the spread between $117 billion and $7 trillion, it's a mere rounding error. Maybe the market and investors were wise to ignore the announcement.
Comments
View as Flat
Green Investor Posted 1:24 am
21 Feb 2008
I enjoyed your story but wonder if you are confusing different issues. The $5.8 billion was Cleantech's tally of deals reported by VCs in the clean energy space. The $117 was New Energy Finance's estimate of total capital investment including by companies such as Eon, Acciona, Shell, BP, Airtricity etc etc.
If we assume as a round number that this is $120 billion per year and that there is no growth in investment levels (which based on what the EU and others are anticipating is conservative) then over 20 years this would lead to $2.4 trillion of investment without any inflation of costs. I don't know if the Cambridge Energy Associates report was in 2007 terms or not but inflation of 3% per year would bring that number up to $3.2 trillion and to get to $7 trillion would only imply growth of investment in real terms of 7%.
Frankly, I am not surprised that nobody raised a ripple as most of us in the industry are expecting at least this number over time.
Permalink
Mikaels Posted 1:05 pm
01 Oct 2008
Permalink