Dear Valued Visitor,

We have noticed that you are using an ad blocker software.

Although advertisements on the web pages may degrade your experience, our business certainly depends on them and we can only keep providing you high-quality research based articles as long as we can display ads on our pages.

To view this article, you can disable your ad blocker and refresh this page or simply login.

We only allow registered users to use ad blockers. You can sign up for free by clicking here or you can login if you are already a member.

Duke Energy Corp (DUK), First Solar, Inc. (FSLR) and Three Areas of the World Continue to Pollute Our Air

Page 1 of 2

When it comes to checks and balances, carbon emissions could do without. Despite massive gains in growth for both solar and wind in 2012, emissions per unit of energy remain nearly at the same level as 15 years ago. Let’s take a closer look at who’s polluting, who’s greening, and if there are profits in store for your portfolio picks.

Black versus green
In the push to curb carbon emissions, coal is the yin to renewables’ yang. Coal-fired generation increased 6% from 2010 to 2013 at a rate that continues to outstrip non-fossil-fuel growth on an absolute basis. Despite gains we’ve seen in carbon capture technology and production efficiency, approximately 50% of all coal-fired plants built in 2011 used inefficient technologies.

For once, it seems, the United States is not to blame. Duke Energy Corp (NYSE:DUK) is well on its way to shutting down 6,800 MW of inefficient plants as part of a $12.5 billion modernization project, while The Southern Company (NYSE:SO) recently celebrated the first time in its history that the company has generated more electricity from gas than coal. In the next two years, Southern has slotted $3.6 billion toward “environmental spending,” a large portion of which will be allocated to “clean coal” generation facilities.

On the renewables front, Arizona’s First Solar, Inc. (NASDAQ:FSLR) has been a welcome recipient of America’s recent solar boom. Company sales jumped 22% in 2012 as U.S. solar installations soared 76% higher.

Source: IEA.org

Carbon culprits
So who are the real culprits of carbon? Look no further than China, India, and (gasp!) Europe. In 2011, China’s coal cravings accounted for 46% of global demand, while India added on another 11%. While the U.S. has ramped down its coal capacity in recent years, China added on 55,000 MW in 2011 alone. That’s roughly equivalent to Duke Energy Corp (NYSE:DUK)’s entire generation capacity.

Source: IEA.org

Although China and India produce plenty of their own black gold, Peabody Energy Corporation (NYSE:BTU) makes a pretty penny off of domestic production and coal exports to those two countries. The company is the leading exporter to China and India from its U.S. and Australian operations, and is setting itself up for significant growth opportunities.

In fiscal year 2012, China sales accounted for 6.8% of total revenue, a 140% increase over 2011 sales. India’s revenue has remained steadier over the last few years, and comprised 4.1% of Peabody’s fiscal 2012 revenue. Looking ahead, the company hopes to deliver 100 million tons of coal into Asia markets by 2020.

But even as coal consumption continues to grow, renewables are hitting record highs. Worldwide wind power pushed up 19% in 2012, while solar PV capacity jumped 42%. Trina Solar Limited (ADR) (NYSE:TSL) is a Chinese solar giant and, although it’s loaded up on debt, may emerge a leader due to its brand power and scale. Although China’s increasing demand for energy is certain, where it will come from is still largely unclear.

And then there’s Europe. While the shale boom in 2012 put coal on the defensive in the United States, low relative prices for coal in Europe actually increased consumption over the last year. From January to June 2012, coal generation increased 8% in Germany, 35% in the United Kingdom, and 65% in Spain. That said, coal-fired units in Europe are generally more technologically efficient and, in the grand scheme of things, have relatively little effect on global coal consumption.

Page 1 of 2
Loading Comments...